April 21, 2025 • 22 mins
(April 21,2025)
How California state workers cash in on days off. A report alleging Pete Hegseth shared through Signal app, sensitive info on the bombing of Yemen. This time, including his wife, brother, and persona lawyer. Katie Perry is suing Katy Perry in Australia… WAIT, What?! What happens after a homeless person is arrested for camping? Often, nothing.
How California state workers cash in on days off. A report alleging Pete Hegseth shared through Signal app, sensitive info on the bombing of Yemen. This time, including his wife, brother, and persona lawyer. Katie Perry is suing Katy Perry in Australia… WAIT, What?! What happens after a homeless person is arrested for camping? Often, nothing.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Bill Handle here on a Monday morning, April twenty one,
international news of course, as the Pope Francis is dead
at the age of eighty eight and onwards now to
the election of a new pope. And I talked all
about that this morning starting in the seven o'clock hour,
and you can listen to it on demand, just the
(00:28):
historical aspects. Fascinating how that works. Also, he'll be embalmed.
And you know the popes are they're publicly shown and
people go past them, and it's not they don't go
past the coffin, they go past the pope and John
Paul the second is a little rough because it was
one of the hottest summers and that's when he died,
(00:51):
and it was it was not pleasant from what I understand,
because he was up there for days.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Just not not a good movie.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Okay, Now I want to talk about California State workers.
Oh man, is it good to work in California. Let
me tell you about a supervising dentist, George suhu In.
He left last year and he had accrued some days off,
a lot of them.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
His payout was one point two million dollars. Here. That's
what you get when you leave.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Employment of the state of California. We have millionaires out there.
Last year, one thousand workers left the state one hundred
thousand dollars or more in banked leave benefits. California paid
out four hundred and thirteen million dollars last year for
unused time off. So how did he There was a
(01:47):
psychologist that got two point three million dollars.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
By the way, how is that possible?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Well, you can take days off where you can work
on days off that you accrue, and they accrue, and
they accrue and they accrue, and you can roll them
over forever, and the days off are paid, not when
you started thirty years ago, as in there was a
(02:15):
dentist with the no it was a psychologist with the
state prison system. The days off, the accrual is how
you get paid in your highest earning years.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
That's how you get this kind of money.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And when you look at this, the unfunded liability, unfunded
for vacation and other leave Bennetts benefits current California employees
five point six billion dollars in twenty twenty three. This
is a budget buster. We go into a recession. We
are in deep, deep trouble.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
We have generous time off provisions, vacation, a cruel of
up to six weeks per year in California, eleven state holidays,
a personal holiday, professional development days. Why don't we have
that here at iHeart where I take a couple of
days off. Not that I don't need professional development, I
(03:21):
get it.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
I understand that. But I'd like to take the day
off and get paid, wouldn't you.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Now very few states have unlimited forever.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
It doesn't matter from the day you started working a cruel.
Texas limits it. Other states limited.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
There's a story about how some states have only This
is hilarious.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
What is it New York?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Forty days of vacation. That's all you can use. So
it's use it or lose it. I think Texas has
one hundred days. That's two years, two years of pay.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
I mean that ain't bad.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Of course, the winner is California. Why, I don't know,
because California is well.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
We have very powerful unions.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
The number one organization that pays the most is a
California prison system, which is very It is the strongest
union in California. It's noted for that very powerful? Why
prison guards make so much money? You want a good job,
with a high school diploma or a ged become a
(04:42):
prison guard and with overtime one hundred grand is not unusual.
And what does a prison guard do sit around and
watch prisoners beat each other to a pulp. It's not
a bad job, very entertaining two, to say the least.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Okay, I'd be a little bit more complicated than how
you put it, but hey.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
My job is to simplify complex issues.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
I see. Yeah, okay, that's what I do.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
That's why I get no vacation days or virtually none,
and I can't accrue them. Are we now's a user
lose amy? You were telling me that they just changed
the rule. It was a it a cruel. You could
accrule for ten years or fifteen years.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Is that true?
Speaker 3 (05:32):
That's my understanding. But now it's changing where it's going
to cap like so like when you hit five weeks
or something like that, then it'll stop accruing.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
How long have you been here at KFI.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
Eleven years, twelve twelve?
Speaker 1 (05:47):
And have you taken all your unused vacation days?
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Oh so you're going to beand to be away from
this place.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Bill, Oh, I know I can. I can see it,
I can feel it. But when you do off, you go.
I take every minute of my time off. I have
zero at the end of the year because I want
to get the hell. You can't get away from this place.
I can get away from this place very easily. Every
(06:20):
minute I take.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
You take yours.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
And then you ask, well, can I get Amy's or
Kno's or Nils anyway? You know, I have a most
favored nation clause in my contract. And you know what
most favored nation is, and that is anybody who gets
a raise, I have to get a raise too. Anybody
who gets more vacation, I have to get more vacation.
That's favored nation.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Ah, that's horrible. Okay, security, that is in security. All right,
let's move over. What's happening with Pete Hegseith, the Defense.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Secretary who, in his argued, really never had the credentials
of being Defense secretary.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Is entire world of being in defense?
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Was he? I believe, was a second lieutenant in the Army,
with several deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and serving with
more than distinction. I mean, I won't use the word
hero but certainly a lot of distinction, and he became
a Defense secretary, a little bit of political. But then again,
(07:27):
what Trump does is he doesn't choose on the basis
of credentials or experience. He chooses on the basis of loyalty.
The more loyal someone is, the better a chance at
a good job. And that's what happened with Pete Hegseith.
The problem is Pete Heck says doesn't really understand what
security is about. It was Atlantic magazine last month that
(07:50):
detailed how senior Trump appointees, including JD. Vance, National Security
Advisor Michael Waltz, and hex' Seth, talking about some of
the strikes against the Huties, they were signal to each
other on signal, an encrypted, unclassified network when Waltz accidentally
(08:13):
included the editor in chief of the Atlantic oops on
highly classified this is where we're going to bomb, and
these are the number of airplanes and this is our
operational secrets. Well, new allegation just comes up and turns
(08:36):
out that this one heg Seth started and this happens
to be another signal chat. And he put in his wife,
his brother, his chief of staff, his spokesperson, his personal lawyer,
his advisor, two senior aides who had no business being
(08:58):
in a chat on this highly classified program and process
about where the attacks were going to happen again. And
I tell you, the President the first time around backed
him up, supported he sith. However, you have a Republican
and Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee who were
(09:21):
not happy and requested the Defense Department Inspector General scrutinized the.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Situation with a review, which is underway. That's for the
first go round.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Now comes the second go round, and now what you
have are Democrats and Republicans asking for his ouster. This
is a guy who doesn't understand security, has no judgment,
does not deserve basically should never be in this position.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
And we're hearing a lot that is just a question.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Of time that he's on his way out. Have not
yet heard from the President backing him up at all.
And if we don't hear from the President, you can
bet that they're just trying to figure out a way
to oust him in keeping face now, his spokesperson yeah
(10:17):
said that this is no big deal at all, that
the press is relying on disgruntled former employees as the
soul sources, no classified information appeared in any chat, no
matter how many times journalists try to write the story
(10:37):
that it's effectively fake.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
News, old news, Well this just broke. I don't know
how old this is. Opinion.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
A Politico published an opinion piece by a former hex
that spokesperson that question.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
His ability to even do the job.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
And this former spokesperson was removed from his position last
month after weeks of colleagues questioning his judgment. His name
is John Ulliat, and he said it's been a month
of total chaos at the Pentagon, from leaks of operational
(11:19):
plans to mass firings. The distinction is now a major
distraction for the president. Of course, the spokesperson for Heke
says says, there is no distraction. The Pentagon is moving
slowly forward. The Pentagon is doing everything that the President
(11:41):
wants the Pentagon to do, even though there have been
firings of senior officials and the Pentagon firings of senior generals.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
And now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
An appointee of the President, which it is, has been
brought in from retirement, which is very very rarely the case.
And why big Trump fan and the shame of it is,
you know, I have no problem bringing in people who
are loyal to the president, I have none, but at
least bring in people who have the.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Credentials and have the experience.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
As opposed to second lieutenants who have zero experience management
to run an agency that is the hundreds of billions
of dollars and runs our armed forces. That's a little tough. Okay,
Let's move over to his lawsuit. Katie Perry suing Katie Perry.
(12:45):
Now this is in Australia.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Katie Perry, as you know, and she got so much
Greek for this, went up into space in Bezos Blue Horizon.
I'm assuming that the reason Katie Perry was chosen because
she is spaced out as much as anybody out there,
So she was chosen.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Okay, had to do that joke.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
The other Katy Perry is an Australian designer, has a
fashion label and for years has asserted that Catherine Hudson
Katy Perry, has infringed on her trademark. And this has
been going on through the Australian courts for more than
five years.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Lower court saying yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
There was an infringement, the Appeals Court saying no, the
designer won. In twenty twenty three, an appeals court reversed
that last year, and now Australia's highest court, their Supreme
Court revisiting, suggesting that the appeals court may have relied
(13:50):
on a faulty premise about fame that could threat threaten
Australian brands. Two women, two teenage dreams, one name, an
Australian judge said in twenty twenty three. This started in
twenty two thousand and nine, the year after Katy Perry
released her single I Kissed a.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Girl, which is one of the most moronic.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Songs ever, and her representatives say that they reached out
to the designer to make some kind of a deal
over their similar names.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
She declined. She says she never received an offer.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
So Katy Perry the Designer launched her label two thousand
and six, started working on it full time two thousand
and seven, applied for one of her trademarks Katy Perry
in two thousand and eight, registered it in two thousand
and nine, and that was before Katy Perry the singer
made it big in Australia.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
So here she is.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
A decade later, she sues Katie Perry saying that clothing
sales on one of the singer's tours through Australia infringed
on the designers trademarks. Here is the issue, and that
is normally a pop star is not going to be
confused with a designer line one's clothing one is singing,
(15:12):
except the lines become blurred. Why because pop stars are
all in the design and fashion business. Can you go
to a concert without buying merch, without buying T shirts,
without buying hats and scarves, that's designer stuff. And so
(15:38):
Katy Perry, designer in Australia is say ding Katy Perry
singer is in the designing business. And there is confusion,
and that is the basis for infringement or the defense
for infringement. We're in different categories. There is no confusion.
(16:00):
You can use the same name if one you're manufacturing
widgets and the other one you're a dentist for example,
and you have the same name, there isn't a problem
with that.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Incidentally, there are.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Well Burger King for example in Australia, it's Hungry Jacks
because there's another restaurant already owning the Burger King copyright
that started years before. So Burger King is now Hungry
Jacks in Australia. Why because of confusion, because they're both
are in the burger business. And so we'll see what
(16:42):
happens with Katy Perry. I think Katy Perry the Designer
is going to win because Katy Perry, the singer spaced
out in space, is now in the fashion clothing industry
with selling merch the Katy Perry line.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I can't I don't even know what it looks like.
I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
But then again, I don't know what Katy Perry the
Designer looks like either. Okay, let me tell you what's
happening in Fresno. There is a homeless person, and I'm
not exaggerating. His name is Wiki two hands, and that's
ironic because he is an amputee and only has one hand.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
By the way, that's not true.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
The city and the county poured all kinds of resources
into his case because what he did is he violated
the law.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
What is the law?
Speaker 2 (17:33):
You can't camp or sleep or hang out in any
public place in Fresno. And he was supposed to be
seventy seven a homeless man supposed to be the first
person tried under this ordinance of Fresno.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Passed last year. All public places, no camping, no hanging.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
And so over the past six months he spent hours
in the courtroom, arriving early each day.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
He had to move where.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
He was living because he didn't want to get rousted
and arrested again. And just before the day before the trial,
the judge dismisses the case. Why is it because the
law is unconstitutional or wiki two Hands has some kind
of rights. No, no, the judge said, prosecution took too
(18:24):
long and had to dismiss the case because going forward
with the case now is a violation of two Hands
ability to have a speedy trial. California cities are passing
ordnance left and right that allow the police to arrest
or site unhoused people read homeless people for camping on
(18:48):
the streets of sidewalks parks, and the police are making arrests.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
But here's the problem.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
When it comes to prosecuting, trying people, or sentencing people,
isn't happening at all. And the argument is why then bother?
And the argument is because we don't want homeless people
in parks on sidewalks. And the argument is they have
(19:15):
no place to go. And the argument is they have shelters,
and if they're are offered shelters, then they are going
to be arrested and tried. And the argument is, I'm
more than happy to go with a shelter, but I
have my dog Spot who doesn't have spots incidentally, and
(19:39):
I can't bring my dog. And it goes on and on,
and the bottom line is you've got prosecutors, you've got
resources that are being used to try these people, to arrest,
to cite these people, and talking let's talk talk about
the city of Los Angeles. Okay, we have ordinary to
(20:00):
stop people from hanging out in parks, public places, parking
with their RVs on sidewalks or in front of sidewalks
on streets.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
We're also looking.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
At a billion dollar deficit for the City of Los Angeles.
This is going to help Karen Bass enormously for her
next election. Believe me, as in how much you want
to bet she is not going to be re elected.
The point is this is a case of the city
(20:33):
pouring resources and nothing happens.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Nothing, and so why bother now?
Speaker 2 (20:43):
The city says it continues to offer plea deals to
defendants to accept housing and services offered by the city,
and it's these homeless people who say no, so we
have no choice.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
The problem is nobody prosecutes.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
The DA's office doesn't prosecute, or the city's office, the
city attorney doesn't prosecute because it's a misdemeanor.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
It's costing too much money.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Nothing is being done, and the non answer continues on
with the homeless.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
It's that simple.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
There is no easy answer, and there's a hopeless problem
getting worse. You know what, I don't know if it's
getting worse, Amy, are there more homeless people or is
it flatlining?
Speaker 3 (21:31):
It's flatlining. I think that they did have some reduction
in the last year, not a lot, but a little bit.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Yeah, with the billions of dollars that were poured into
these various programs, that what per person taken out of
the situation of homelessness, what it costs per person you
can live on for a year. Okay, guys, we're done.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
That's it. Gary and Shannon up next.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
I am guessing they're going to be talking about the
Pope dying this morning, and then.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Tomorrow it starts all over again. Wake Up call with.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Amy and Will and Neil and I come aboard and
throughout all the programs and all night Kono and an
This is kf I am sixty. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle Show, Catch My Show Monday through Friday,
six am to nine am, and anytime on demand on
(22:26):
the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Bill Handle here on a Monday morning, April twenty one,
international news of course, as the Pope Francis is dead
at the age of eighty eight and onwards now to
the election of a new pope. And I talked all
about that this morning starting in the seven o'clock hour,
and you can listen to it on demand, just the
(00:28):
historical aspects. Fascinating how that works. Also, he'll be embalmed.
And you know the popes are they're publicly shown and
people go past them, and it's not they don't go
past the coffin, they go past the pope and John
Paul the second is a little rough because it was
one of the hottest summers and that's when he died,
(00:51):
and it was it was not pleasant from what I understand,
because he was up there for days.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Just not not a good movie.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Okay, Now I want to talk about California State workers.
Oh man, is it good to work in California. Let
me tell you about a supervising dentist, George suhu In.
He left last year and he had accrued some days off,
a lot of them.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
His payout was one point two million dollars. Here. That's
what you get when you leave.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Employment of the state of California. We have millionaires out there.
Last year, one thousand workers left the state one hundred
thousand dollars or more in banked leave benefits. California paid
out four hundred and thirteen million dollars last year for
unused time off. So how did he There was a
(01:47):
psychologist that got two point three million dollars.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
By the way, how is that possible?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Well, you can take days off where you can work
on days off that you accrue, and they accrue, and
they accrue and they accrue, and you can roll them
over forever, and the days off are paid, not when
you started thirty years ago, as in there was a
(02:15):
dentist with the no it was a psychologist with the
state prison system. The days off, the accrual is how
you get paid in your highest earning years.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
That's how you get this kind of money.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And when you look at this, the unfunded liability, unfunded
for vacation and other leave Bennetts benefits current California employees
five point six billion dollars in twenty twenty three. This
is a budget buster. We go into a recession. We
are in deep, deep trouble.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
We have generous time off provisions, vacation, a cruel of
up to six weeks per year in California, eleven state holidays,
a personal holiday, professional development days. Why don't we have
that here at iHeart where I take a couple of
days off. Not that I don't need professional development, I
(03:21):
get it.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
I understand that. But I'd like to take the day
off and get paid, wouldn't you.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Now very few states have unlimited forever.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
It doesn't matter from the day you started working a cruel.
Texas limits it. Other states limited.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
There's a story about how some states have only This
is hilarious.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
What is it New York?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Forty days of vacation. That's all you can use. So
it's use it or lose it. I think Texas has
one hundred days. That's two years, two years of pay.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
I mean that ain't bad.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Of course, the winner is California. Why, I don't know,
because California is well.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
We have very powerful unions.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
The number one organization that pays the most is a
California prison system, which is very It is the strongest
union in California. It's noted for that very powerful? Why
prison guards make so much money? You want a good job,
with a high school diploma or a ged become a
(04:42):
prison guard and with overtime one hundred grand is not unusual.
And what does a prison guard do sit around and
watch prisoners beat each other to a pulp. It's not
a bad job, very entertaining two, to say the least.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Okay, I'd be a little bit more complicated than how
you put it, but hey.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
My job is to simplify complex issues.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
I see. Yeah, okay, that's what I do.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
That's why I get no vacation days or virtually none,
and I can't accrue them. Are we now's a user
lose amy? You were telling me that they just changed
the rule. It was a it a cruel. You could
accrule for ten years or fifteen years.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Is that true?
Speaker 3 (05:32):
That's my understanding. But now it's changing where it's going
to cap like so like when you hit five weeks
or something like that, then it'll stop accruing.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
How long have you been here at KFI.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
Eleven years, twelve twelve?
Speaker 1 (05:47):
And have you taken all your unused vacation days?
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Oh so you're going to beand to be away from
this place.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Bill, Oh, I know I can. I can see it,
I can feel it. But when you do off, you go.
I take every minute of my time off. I have
zero at the end of the year because I want
to get the hell. You can't get away from this place.
I can get away from this place very easily. Every
(06:20):
minute I take.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
You take yours.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
And then you ask, well, can I get Amy's or
Kno's or Nils anyway? You know, I have a most
favored nation clause in my contract. And you know what
most favored nation is, and that is anybody who gets
a raise, I have to get a raise too. Anybody
who gets more vacation, I have to get more vacation.
That's favored nation.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Ah, that's horrible. Okay, security, that is in security. All right,
let's move over. What's happening with Pete Hegseith, the Defense.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Secretary who, in his argued, really never had the credentials
of being Defense secretary.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Is entire world of being in defense?
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Was he? I believe, was a second lieutenant in the Army,
with several deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and serving with
more than distinction. I mean, I won't use the word
hero but certainly a lot of distinction, and he became
a Defense secretary, a little bit of political. But then again,
(07:27):
what Trump does is he doesn't choose on the basis
of credentials or experience. He chooses on the basis of loyalty.
The more loyal someone is, the better a chance at
a good job. And that's what happened with Pete Hegseith.
The problem is Pete Heck says doesn't really understand what
security is about. It was Atlantic magazine last month that
(07:50):
detailed how senior Trump appointees, including JD. Vance, National Security
Advisor Michael Waltz, and hex' Seth, talking about some of
the strikes against the Huties, they were signal to each
other on signal, an encrypted, unclassified network when Waltz accidentally
(08:13):
included the editor in chief of the Atlantic oops on
highly classified this is where we're going to bomb, and
these are the number of airplanes and this is our
operational secrets. Well, new allegation just comes up and turns
(08:36):
out that this one heg Seth started and this happens
to be another signal chat. And he put in his wife,
his brother, his chief of staff, his spokesperson, his personal lawyer,
his advisor, two senior aides who had no business being
(08:58):
in a chat on this highly classified program and process
about where the attacks were going to happen again. And
I tell you, the President the first time around backed
him up, supported he sith. However, you have a Republican
and Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee who were
(09:21):
not happy and requested the Defense Department Inspector General scrutinized the.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Situation with a review, which is underway. That's for the
first go round.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Now comes the second go round, and now what you
have are Democrats and Republicans asking for his ouster. This
is a guy who doesn't understand security, has no judgment,
does not deserve basically should never be in this position.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
And we're hearing a lot that is just a question.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Of time that he's on his way out. Have not
yet heard from the President backing him up at all.
And if we don't hear from the President, you can
bet that they're just trying to figure out a way
to oust him in keeping face now, his spokesperson yeah
(10:17):
said that this is no big deal at all, that
the press is relying on disgruntled former employees as the
soul sources, no classified information appeared in any chat, no
matter how many times journalists try to write the story
(10:37):
that it's effectively fake.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
News, old news, Well this just broke. I don't know
how old this is. Opinion.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
A Politico published an opinion piece by a former hex
that spokesperson that question.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
His ability to even do the job.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
And this former spokesperson was removed from his position last
month after weeks of colleagues questioning his judgment. His name
is John Ulliat, and he said it's been a month
of total chaos at the Pentagon, from leaks of operational
(11:19):
plans to mass firings. The distinction is now a major
distraction for the president. Of course, the spokesperson for Heke
says says, there is no distraction. The Pentagon is moving
slowly forward. The Pentagon is doing everything that the President
(11:41):
wants the Pentagon to do, even though there have been
firings of senior officials and the Pentagon firings of senior generals.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
And now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
An appointee of the President, which it is, has been
brought in from retirement, which is very very rarely the case.
And why big Trump fan and the shame of it is,
you know, I have no problem bringing in people who
are loyal to the president, I have none, but at
least bring in people who have the.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Credentials and have the experience.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
As opposed to second lieutenants who have zero experience management
to run an agency that is the hundreds of billions
of dollars and runs our armed forces. That's a little tough. Okay,
Let's move over to his lawsuit. Katie Perry suing Katie Perry.
(12:45):
Now this is in Australia.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Katie Perry, as you know, and she got so much
Greek for this, went up into space in Bezos Blue Horizon.
I'm assuming that the reason Katie Perry was chosen because
she is spaced out as much as anybody out there,
So she was chosen.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Okay, had to do that joke.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
The other Katy Perry is an Australian designer, has a
fashion label and for years has asserted that Catherine Hudson
Katy Perry, has infringed on her trademark. And this has
been going on through the Australian courts for more than
five years.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Lower court saying yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
There was an infringement, the Appeals Court saying no, the
designer won. In twenty twenty three, an appeals court reversed
that last year, and now Australia's highest court, their Supreme
Court revisiting, suggesting that the appeals court may have relied
(13:50):
on a faulty premise about fame that could threat threaten
Australian brands. Two women, two teenage dreams, one name, an
Australian judge said in twenty twenty three. This started in
twenty two thousand and nine, the year after Katy Perry
released her single I Kissed a.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Girl, which is one of the most moronic.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Songs ever, and her representatives say that they reached out
to the designer to make some kind of a deal
over their similar names.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
She declined. She says she never received an offer.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
So Katy Perry the Designer launched her label two thousand
and six, started working on it full time two thousand
and seven, applied for one of her trademarks Katy Perry
in two thousand and eight, registered it in two thousand
and nine, and that was before Katy Perry the singer
made it big in Australia.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
So here she is.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
A decade later, she sues Katie Perry saying that clothing
sales on one of the singer's tours through Australia infringed
on the designers trademarks. Here is the issue, and that
is normally a pop star is not going to be
confused with a designer line one's clothing one is singing,
(15:12):
except the lines become blurred. Why because pop stars are
all in the design and fashion business. Can you go
to a concert without buying merch, without buying T shirts,
without buying hats and scarves, that's designer stuff. And so
(15:38):
Katy Perry, designer in Australia is say ding Katy Perry
singer is in the designing business. And there is confusion,
and that is the basis for infringement or the defense
for infringement. We're in different categories. There is no confusion.
(16:00):
You can use the same name if one you're manufacturing
widgets and the other one you're a dentist for example,
and you have the same name, there isn't a problem
with that.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Incidentally, there are.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Well Burger King for example in Australia, it's Hungry Jacks
because there's another restaurant already owning the Burger King copyright
that started years before. So Burger King is now Hungry
Jacks in Australia. Why because of confusion, because they're both
are in the burger business. And so we'll see what
(16:42):
happens with Katy Perry. I think Katy Perry the Designer
is going to win because Katy Perry, the singer spaced
out in space, is now in the fashion clothing industry
with selling merch the Katy Perry line.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I can't I don't even know what it looks like.
I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
But then again, I don't know what Katy Perry the
Designer looks like either. Okay, let me tell you what's
happening in Fresno. There is a homeless person, and I'm
not exaggerating. His name is Wiki two hands, and that's
ironic because he is an amputee and only has one hand.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
By the way, that's not true.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
The city and the county poured all kinds of resources
into his case because what he did is he violated
the law.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
What is the law?
Speaker 2 (17:33):
You can't camp or sleep or hang out in any
public place in Fresno. And he was supposed to be
seventy seven a homeless man supposed to be the first
person tried under this ordinance of Fresno.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Passed last year. All public places, no camping, no hanging.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
And so over the past six months he spent hours
in the courtroom, arriving early each day.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
He had to move where.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
He was living because he didn't want to get rousted
and arrested again. And just before the day before the trial,
the judge dismisses the case. Why is it because the
law is unconstitutional or wiki two Hands has some kind
of rights. No, no, the judge said, prosecution took too
(18:24):
long and had to dismiss the case because going forward
with the case now is a violation of two Hands
ability to have a speedy trial. California cities are passing
ordnance left and right that allow the police to arrest
or site unhoused people read homeless people for camping on
(18:48):
the streets of sidewalks parks, and the police are making arrests.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
But here's the problem.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
When it comes to prosecuting, trying people, or sentencing people,
isn't happening at all. And the argument is why then bother?
And the argument is because we don't want homeless people
in parks on sidewalks. And the argument is they have
(19:15):
no place to go. And the argument is they have shelters,
and if they're are offered shelters, then they are going
to be arrested and tried. And the argument is, I'm
more than happy to go with a shelter, but I
have my dog Spot who doesn't have spots incidentally, and
(19:39):
I can't bring my dog. And it goes on and on,
and the bottom line is you've got prosecutors, you've got
resources that are being used to try these people, to arrest,
to cite these people, and talking let's talk talk about
the city of Los Angeles. Okay, we have ordinary to
(20:00):
stop people from hanging out in parks, public places, parking
with their RVs on sidewalks or in front of sidewalks
on streets.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
We're also looking.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
At a billion dollar deficit for the City of Los Angeles.
This is going to help Karen Bass enormously for her
next election. Believe me, as in how much you want
to bet she is not going to be re elected.
The point is this is a case of the city
(20:33):
pouring resources and nothing happens.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Nothing, and so why bother now?
Speaker 2 (20:43):
The city says it continues to offer plea deals to
defendants to accept housing and services offered by the city,
and it's these homeless people who say no, so we
have no choice.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
The problem is nobody prosecutes.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
The DA's office doesn't prosecute, or the city's office, the
city attorney doesn't prosecute because it's a misdemeanor.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
It's costing too much money.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Nothing is being done, and the non answer continues on
with the homeless.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
It's that simple.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
There is no easy answer, and there's a hopeless problem
getting worse. You know what, I don't know if it's
getting worse, Amy, are there more homeless people or is
it flatlining?
Speaker 3 (21:31):
It's flatlining. I think that they did have some reduction
in the last year, not a lot, but a little bit.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Yeah, with the billions of dollars that were poured into
these various programs, that what per person taken out of
the situation of homelessness, what it costs per person you
can live on for a year. Okay, guys, we're done.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
That's it. Gary and Shannon up next.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
I am guessing they're going to be talking about the
Pope dying this morning, and then.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Tomorrow it starts all over again. Wake Up call with.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Amy and Will and Neil and I come aboard and
throughout all the programs and all night Kono and an
This is kf I am sixty. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle Show, Catch My Show Monday through Friday,
six am to nine am, and anytime on demand on
(22:26):
the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.