Some of you may remember back in twenty twenty two, how there were two different competing ballot initiatives on the ballot, propositions twenty six and twenty seven, and both of them were dealing with the issue of sports gambling. And it was basically the California Native American casinos going up against these national online sports betting websites like FanDuel, Draft Kings MGM, I think is in on that action,
et cetera. And so basically the one ballot initiative that the one that was promoted by the Native American casinos was talking about, Oh it's so gambling is so terrible, Pete, You're going to allow kids to have access to gambling, and they're right on their smart and in their video game devices. Oh gambling, what a scourge. Let's just legalized sports gambling here at our
Native American casinos. And then the consortium of the national online sports gambling sites they managed to get like a couple of Native American tribes on their side instead, see, not all Native Americans support only having Native American casinos there. If you support our proposition, we'll give so much money to these poor Native Americans that aren't being supported by the Native American casinos. Oh and what was this all about? It was basically just both sides were too stupid and greedy
to just kind of work together. Both sides were wanting to get one hundred percent of the market share for sports gambling in California. The online sites didn't want anyone to go to Native American casinos to gamble. They didn't want anyone going to took chance through their table mountain or you know, the you know, Tachie palace whatever. They just wanted people to gamble on sports online, on FANDOL draftings, et cetera, and vice versa. The Native American casinos
wanted people to come just to their casinos to bout on sports. They didn't want people gambling online. So if the two of them had just worked together and found some way to have a decent split of the market share, both sides would be richer. And today, guess what, sports gambling is not legal in California. A similar kind of fight is happening in the California state
legislature this year right now. So there's a great piece, really interesting, I learned a ton, very well reported written by Ryan Sabolo and Jeremiah Kimmelman for Calmatters dot org, which is Dan Walter's really good California news website.
I've retweeted it at my Twitter account Twitter dot com slash Reresno Johnny, I really recommend you go read it. And this is a fight that's apparently been going on for years and years between the Native American casinos and smaller card rooms, so not full blown casinos, but usually but these gambling establishments that have various kinds of card table games. So I think it's kind of like the
Club one casinos of the world, like kind of entities like that. And you see a couple of those, just to trying to think of one off the top of my head in Fresno. So that's the kind of thing we're talking about. You have the Native American casinos and then you have sort of these card rooms. And card rooms are heavily regulated under California law. There
are certain kinds of things they are allowed to do. They're allowed to have, for example, normal poker, but they're not allowed to have blackjack where they themselves the entity that's hoasting it is the house that is taking the money, all right. With normal poker, people are gambling against each other with blackjack, you're gambling against the house. So under California law, that kind of gambling is only allowed to take place at Native American caos. It's not
allowed to take place in these card rooms. However, these card rooms have gotten around this provision of California law. And this is California law that goes like all the way back to you know, when the forty nine ers, you know, the action not the football team forty nine ers, like the actual eighteen forty nine forty nine ers were coming to California and people were setting up these card rooms and absolutely ripping off all of these guys who came for
gold mining. And so they put these laws in place. The new you know, they put all these laws in place, the very young you know, government of the state of California put all these laws in place to limit the kinds of action that these card rooms could take. Well, a lot of card rooms have now kind of gotten around it by hiring sort of a third party contractor to be in the card room that's actually taking the role of
the house. So the card room itself is not the house. They have some other third party that takes the role of the house, and the Native American casinos don't like this. Native American casinos hate this, they think, and again, it seems like this thing of like they're so both sides.
And I'm not specifically just picking on Native American casinos. I think everyone in this game seems in this space, this gambling space, seems to be so unbelievably greedy for a business where you're almost guaranteed to make money by based on math, based on math and human vice. Where the Native American casinos are so angry that these card rooms are offering the kinds of games that they think they are the only ones legally entitled to have, that it eats into their
market share, and I guess I'm so. But the Native American casinos are trying to do is they have proposed a law. They have a bill that's been introduced into the California state legislature this year, Senate Bill five forty nine. What this would do is it would allow Native American casinos directly to sue
card rooms for what they believe are violations of California law. The Native American casinos take the position that the card rooms, by allowing blackjacking games like this because they have a third party contractor in the casino to actually take the action. Basically, the Native American casinos think they are violating the law which prohibits card rooms from having table games where they are playing the role of the house. The card rooms say, we're not playing the role of the house.
We've brought in this third party that is acting in the role of the house, so we are actually in compliance with California law. And there's this there's been this ongoing legal argument between the two sides, and basically the Native American casinos are frustrated because various Attorneys General of California have declined to prosecute or try to enforce, you know, whatever is the disputed California standard against the card
rooms. Rob Bonta has been getting campaign contributions sort of from both sides. Wants to clearly Bonta has now has stated he wants to run for governor in twenty twenty six, and so Bonta seemingly has been very slow, oh too slow for the Native American casinos. Basically, the Native American casinos are tired of waiting on Rob Bonta to take action against the card rooms. And here's
what's happened? Okay, card rooms and tribal governments have both been heavily donating to Rob Bonta since he took office as Attorney General in twenty twenty one. Card Rooms have donated two hundred and eighty seven thousand dollars to Bonta for his various campaigns. Meanwhile, Native American tribes have donated two hundred twenty two thousand. So Bonta's sort of caught in the middle. I don't think he wants
to act one way or another. So what the Native American tribes are proposing with this new bill again, this is Senate Bill five point forty nine, is to let Native American casinos sue card rooms for what they believe is violating California law in this way and clarifying that. Well, let me talk a little bit about standing to sue. All right, You're not allowed to sue somebody unless you have legal standing. You have to show to the judge.
The first thing that j Just's gonna ask you, well, why are you in my courtroom? Are you allowed to bring this lawsuit? Generally speaking, to have standing to sue, you have to show that the person you're suing caused you some kind of harm that you're authorized to be there. All right. If someone is driving negligently and crashes his car into my house, I have grounds to sue that person. He harmed me, he harmed my property.
But my buddy Jonathan Keller can't sue the guy for crashing into my house. Jonathan wasn't hurt. Jonathan likes me and cares about my well being,
but that's not a cognizable legal harm that gives them standing to sue. And basically what the Native American casinos want to do is say, we are going to create legally standing for us to sue card rooms because they're taking this action which we think, we think maybe is cutting into our bottom line because these people are going to these card rooms to gamble when they should be coming to
Native American casinos to gamble. But can they actually demonstrate a direct dollar to dollar showing that they lost money directly because people went to these card rooms rather than to the Native American casinos. Maybe people wouldn't go to the Native American casino all right, Again, just to use the Fresno example, and by the way, this is not me sticking up for you know, the card rooms of the world. If you have a card room in Fresno. Right,
none of the Native American casinos are in Fresno. They're all out of town a decent drive. Maybe someone if he can't gamble on blackjack or whatever at a card room in Fresno, he just won't gamble. It doesn't necessarily mean that he will. Also, just because he gambles here doesn't mean the Native American casino is losing out on that exact dollar amount. There's no It's
very hard to make that direct connection. So what the Native American casinos want to do is just get around the normal rules that govern standing to sue people when it's not clear and obvious that they have suffered a harm by the card
rooms, or or what exact harm they have suffered. In the case of this one Native American casino wanting to sue this one card room, it's not clear what exact, precise dollar harm they have suffered, and up to this point, California law on this subject would have had to be enforced by some state actor, the district attorney, the attorney general, someone like that.
So the Native American casinos are mad because district attorneys, the attorney general have not enforced this law, so they're trying have not enforced their interpretation of this law. Rather, so they are trying to sort of get around this by passing a bill to allow them directly to sue card rooms to get them to stop having some third party in the casino who can take the action as the
house for these various kinds of card games. But one of the things we see is that both sides are spending just absolute big time bookoo bucks on lobbying, on political contributions, and that these towns are like totally dependent on this rect in ways that are just not healthy. When we return, I want to talk about all those aspects of this. This is the John Girardi Show
on Power Talk. You can find it at my Twitter account, Twitter dot com, slash Fresnojohnny at Fresnojohnny. A great piece from Calmatters dot org about the fight that's going on in the state legislature right now between card rooms that are offering certain kinds of card games that the Native American casinos say they're not allowed to do. Native American casinos think that that is taking market share away from them. If you can just play blackjack at the card room. Why
would you come to our Native American casino to play blackjack. The Native American casinos argue that these card rooms are not allowed to offer blackjack. Cardrooms are saying, yes, we are allowed to do it through this system we set up where we have a third party inside the casino that plays the role of
the house. There's a bill Senate Bill five forty nine that's in fron in the state legislature to try to allow Native American casinos to sue card rooms for having these kinds of arrangements and offering games like pigau poker, blackjack, and backarrat games where you have people gambling against the house. That's the problem current
California law. Native American casinos argue California law allows card rooms to host things like poker where people are gambling against each other, but not where people are gambling directly against the house. That is only the exclusive domain of Native American casinos. Now, I'd have to imagine rather than duking this out constantly in the state legislature, hiring gazillions of dollars of lobbyists and spending hundreds of thousands
and millions of dollars, maybe combined on political contributions. Maybe the two sides could just kind of live and let live and everyone can make a lot of money. But here's the thing to they're like huge stakes involved here, huh for gambling, huge stakes involved. So one of the issues is that these card rooms, these card rooms that are in various different cities, especially in
Los Angeles. There's a city in Los Angeles area called Hawaiian Gardens, California, where there's a local card room that is apparently the only thing that's paying for most municipal services. Tax revenue derived from that local card room is basically the only thing sustaining the entire town. So basically, the Hawaiian Gardens casino in Los Angeles, which is one of these card rooms, it alone spent nine point one million dollars in lobbying costs just last year. Now, why
do local governments care about that? Nearly two thirds of the budget for the city of Hawaiian Gardens is funded by this one card room. They have. The tax revenue from this one card room is funding two thirds of the city budget. Hawaiian Gardens, California. I guess it's a city in Los Angeles County. They have this cardroom. Tax revenue from that cardroom funds two thirds of the city's budget. The city of Commerce, California, also in Los
Angeles County, has a card room. The tax revenue from that card room is funding half of the city's budget. Those games were very dependent on here in the city, said Commerce s Mair Hugo Argumndo. They provide many of the programs and services that we offer to the residents in our community. So as an example, when the pandemic shut down gaming in Hawaiian Gardens, the city was forced to lay off much of its staff and cut services. Yeah,
because the card rooms autstained two thirds of their operations. Of course they had cut people off. So these Native American tribes are so like which these Native American casinos, I should say, are so greedy to have one hundred percent of this market share in their arms that they don't care. They're they're gonna introduce this legislation to shut down all these card rooms. And by the
way, I'm not even necessarily on the side of these card rooms. I don't think it's a very healthy arrangement that you have entire cities in California that are basically gonna be. I mean, how can you not say that there are at least these two cities in California that governed by their casino, by their local card room. If the card room's tax revenue is funding two thirds of the entire city budget, I don't think you have a representative government of
the people, by the people, for the people. You have a representative government of the of the card room. Buy the card room, for the card room. Two thirds of the city budget is funded by tax revenue from gambling. That's a recipe for disaster. And I recognize there's no easy solution to that. I can't just you know, switsch my magic wand and make it not so for the City of Hawaiian Gardens, California, and for the City of Commerce, California. But this is the thing. I constantly say
this about gambling and marijuana legalization. Why do state and local governments like them. It's because it's a way to raise tax revenue without taxing people. It's a way for the city for the local government to raise revenue without mandatorially taxing anyone. No one has to go to the card room. No one has to go to the casino. It's almost like it's your own fault if you do. And guess what state and local governments cannot spend into the red the
way the federal government can't. They need sources of revenue. They're desperate for sources of revenue. Like but here you have the mayor of Hawaiian Gardens,
California. This is a mayor of a California city who who's talking about like if his if the card room in his city can't offer blackjack, he says, quote, we're very, very limited in what we can do, the mayor of Victor Farfan, the mayor of Hawaiian Gardens, California, said, in an interview with Cal Matters at Hawaiian Gardens City Hall, with the card room visible from the parking lot, and so we're fortunate enough to have a revenue source that we do today. So I think I hate everyone. I
think I hate everyone in this entire story. I hate this idea that there are cities in the state of California completely controlled by card rooms. I hate the idea that basically this legislation, this SP five forty nine, is going to be determined by Native American tribes have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to all these legislators all up and down the state, regardless of political affiliation. Meanwhile, card rooms have done the same dang thing. And by the way,
it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Republicans or Democrats. Republicans and Democrats are both supporting this legislation. You got Democrats Republicans opposing it. The whole thing is flushed with money on both sides. It is so crass. It just seems so greedy. I hate both sides anyway. Read the Calumetter's pieces Twitter dot com slash President Johnny at President Johnny. When we return, I want to talk briefly about my dad and my gratitude for everyone's well
wishes. That's next on the John Gerardi Show. So the whole thing is just absolutely flushed with money on both sides of it, which and the whole thing seems to me so silly, this idea that these Native American casinos are so greedy that they cannot bear the idea of having less than one hundred percent of the market share for blackjack. When we return, my thanks to everyone for well wishes following the death of my dad. I'll talk a little bit
about that next time. The John Girardi Show. I think Trevor discussed it a bit, I think on Tuesday, and I've talked about it a bit. But as many of you know, my father, doctor Joe Girardi, passed away on Tuesday, March twelfth, due to complications from cancer. Doctor
Joe was a longtime surgeon thirty one years at Valley Children's Hospital. The head of the department there estimated that my dad may have cared for as many as one hundred and fifty thousand kids over the course of his time at Children's,
which is kind of staggering. And his funeral was this past Tuesday, and I want to just say, first of all, there's so many people in my kind of broader radio family, people who listen to the show, people who support our work at Right to Life Radio and listen to Right to Life Radio, who have expressed their love and care and concern for me. It was really it was really gratifying to see a bunch of the iHeart team actually at the funeral, Trevor and Agent Squires and our good buddy Steve Darnell.
So I just want to say to all of you who've offered prayers and condolences, thank you. It's obviously it's an incredibly tough thing to lose your dad, and for him to have died so young. He was a young, healthy sixty three years ago. He was a healthy as a horse sixty four year old who was a long distance runner and played thirty six holes of golf every weekend, and to lose him is quite a blow. But the hope I have, especially this sort of week of Holy Week and as we approach
Easter, just gives me a tremendous amount of comfort. And I just want to express here my deep gratitude to everyone for their prayers and love and support during this whole time. And when we return, as we're entering the triduum, I think it would be a great way to cap things off radio wise with a reading of the Passion of our Lord according to the Gospel of Luke, and that will be next on the John Girardi Show. The Passion of
Our Lord Jesus Christ according to Luke. Now the feast of unleavened bread drew near, which is called the Passover, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death, for they feared the people. Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them. And they were glad and engaged to give him
money. So he agreed and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of the multitude. Then came the day of unleavened bread, on which the passover Lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it. They said to him, where will you have us prepare it? He said to them, behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house
which he enters, and tell the householder. The teacher says to you, where is the guest room where I am to eat the passover with my disciples. And he will show you a large upper room furnished there make ready. And they went and found it as he had told them, and they prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him, and he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer, For I tell you I
shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, take this and divide it among yourselves, for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, this is my body
which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup after supper, saying, this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the son of man goes as it has been determined. But woe to that man by whom he is betrayed. And they began to question one another which of them it was that would do this. A dispute also arose among them which of them was
to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, the kings of the gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest and the leader, as one who serves. For which is the greater one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have continued with me in my
trials. And I assign to you, as my father assigned to me a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon Simon behold Satan demanded to have you that he might sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. And he said to him, Lord, I
am ready to go with you to prison and to death. He said, I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day until you three times deny that you know me. And he said to them, when I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything? They said nothing. He said to them. But now let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you
that this scripture must be fulfilled in me. And he was reckoned with transgressors, for what is written about me has its fulfillment. And they said, look, Lord, here are two swords. And he said to them, it is enough. And he came out and went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. And when he came to the place, he said to them, pray that you may
not enter into temptation. And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, Father, if thou art willing remove this cup from me, nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done. And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling upon the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he
came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow. And he said to them, why do you sleep, Rise and pray that you may not enter into temptation. While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said to him, Judas, would you betray the son of man with a kiss? And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall
we strike with the sword? And one of them struck the slave of the High Priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said no more of this, and he touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come out against him, have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour and the power of darkness.
Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the High Priest's house. Peter followed at a distance, and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light, and gazing at him, said this man also was with him, but he denied it, saying, woman, I do not know him. And a little later some one else saw him and said, you you also are one
of them, But Peter said, man, I am not. And after an interval of about an hour, still another insisted, saying, certainly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean. But Peter said, man, I do not know what you are saying. And immediately, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed, and the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord how he had said to him before the cock crows, today you will deny me three times,
and he went out and wept bitterly. Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him. They also blindfolded him and asked him, prophesy, who is it that struck you? And they spoke many other words against him, reviling him. When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him away to their council, and they said, if you are the Christ,
tell us. But he said to them, if I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God. And they all said, are you the son of God? Then? And he said to them, you say that I am. And they said, what further testimony do we need? We
have heard it ourselves from his own lips. Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilot, and they began to accuse him, saying, we found this man perverting our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. And Pilot asked him, are you the king of the Jews? And he answered him, you have said so. And Pilot said to the chief priests and the multitudes,
I find no crime in this man. But they were urgent, saying he stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place. When Pilot heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean, and when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see
some sign done by him. So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer. The chief priests and the scribes stood by vehemently accusing him, and Herod with his soldiers, treated him with contempt and mocked him. Then arraying him in gorgeous apparel, he sent him back to Pilot, and Herod and Pilot became friends with each other that very day, for before
this they had been at enmity with each other. Pilot then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, you brought me this man as one who was perverting the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him. I
will therefore chastise him and release him. Now. He was obliged to release one man to them at the festival, but they all cried out together away with this man and released to us Barabbas, a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. Pilot addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, but they shouted out, crucify, crucify him. A third time. He said to them, why what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death.
I will therefore chastise him and release him. But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries, that he should be crucified, and their voices prevailed, so Pilot gave sentence that their demand should be granted. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, whom they asked for, But Jesus he delivered up to their will. And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Syrene, who was coming in from the
country, and laid on him the cross to carry it behind Jesus. And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women, who bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus, turning to them, said, daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold the days are coming when they will say, blessed are the baron, and the wounds that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck. Then they will begin to say, to the mountains fall on
us, and to the hills cover us. For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry. Two others also who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. And when they came to the place which is called the skull. There they crucified him and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do. And they cast lots to divide his garments, and the people stood by watching, But the rulers scoffed at him, saying he saved others, Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, his chosen one. The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar and saying, if you are the King of the Jews, save yourself. There was also an inscription over him, this is the king of the Jews.
One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, are you not the Christ, save yourself and I. But the other rebuked him, saying, do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation. And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds. But this man has done nothing wrong. And he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And he said to him, truly, I say to you today you will be with
me in paradise. It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun's light failed, and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands, I commit my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his last. Now, when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said,
certainly this man was innocent. And all the multitudes who assembled to see the sight, when they saw what had taken place, returned home, beating their breasts. And all his acquaintances, and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance and saw these things. Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man who had not consented to their purpose
indeed, and he was looking for the Kingdom of God. This man went to Pilot and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a rock hewn tomb, where no one had ever yet been laid. It was the day of preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath, they rested according
to the commandment. I hope you all have a truly blessed Triduum and a holy and hopeful Easter as we remember our Lord giving his life so that we might have eternal life. Thank you all so much for all of us at John Girardi Show. May God bless you and your family. See you next time on Power Talk.