TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Government

    Freelance Legislator

    What would happen if you removed politics from legislation? What if policy could be discussed without mention of party? Freelance Legislator is a show where we will discuss and create actual legislation that can be passed in any city, county, or state–without discussing party politics or pundits. Real people, actual legislation that will bring real results. Hosted by Nick Galieti

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Copyright 2021 by Nick Galieti and Radio Gold Productions LLC

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Use of Force Registry Part 2 – Measuring police effectiveness Apr 24, 2021
    Show notes

    If you need to listen to Part 1 in this series, click here.
    For the article written by Shima Baradaran Baughman featured in this episode, click here.

    This episode is part 2 in our series on a “use of force registry” for law enforcement. A lot has happened since our last episode, and I’m just not sure that the name for this series applies anymore. I will explain why coming up on this episode of Freelance Legislator. Given all that is happening in the world relating to law enforcement, namely the use of excessive force by law enforcement, I began formulating and exposing myself to various ideas for solutions to the problem. When I was first presented the idea to require officers that show a history of uses of force, or what we might define as uses of excessive force, to be a part of a registry, sort of similar to a sex offender registry the idea intrigued me. But I felt uneasy about it at the same time. If you used or had an ongoing history with excessive use of force, no matter where these officers tried to find work, they would sort of be branded so as to keep them from working, or to at least inform the public of this officer’s actions. This seemed to serve an emotionally bruised public, but how would this work for the law enforcement community, and what about their innocent families? It doesn’t fully take into account the climate in which we live. Civilized society shouldn’t promote or facilitate revenge. So that leads us to consider the statistics gathering mechanism that would have to be used to even track uses of force.

    Guest photo Shima Baughman
    Shima Baradaran Boughman

    The more I thought about it what those stats would look like, and what is already being gathered at the federal level, I realized that I needed to better understand the legal precedents relating to uses of force, including Supreme Court cases. I wanted to explore certain landmark Supreme Court Cases that relate to the use of force by police. Cases like Graham Vs Connor, or Tennessee vs. Garner and others are being used today as precedent in some of the controversial cases we hear about today in the news media. I wanted to speak with a law professor or someone who could speak to these cases and why they are relevant. I was encouraged to talk to Shima Baradaran Baughman, Associate Dean of Research and Faculty Development, College Of Law at the University of Utah. When I asked if she would come on to talk about these cases, she made a suggestion that has completely altered to the course of how I want to approach this idea of a Use of Force Registry moving forward. She sent me an article she wrote that was published in the Alabama Law Review entitled: HOW EFFECTIVE ARE POLICE? THE PROBLEM OF CLEARANCE RATES AND CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY. When I read this article, I had a record scratch moment.

    Here is a short part of the paper to give you a sense for what I mean. “In recent years, the national conversation in criminal justice has centered on police. Are police using excessive force? Should they be monitored more closely? Do technology and artificial intelligence improve policing? The implied core question across these national debates is whether police are effective at their jobs. Yet we have not explored how effective police are or determined how best to measure police effectiveness. This article endeavors to measure how effectively police perform at their core function — solving crime.” My record scratch moment came with asking myself the question, what is the job of the police? I hadn’t even asked that question, yet I presumed that I could somehow come up with a set of metrics regarding use of force that would address the real issues going on with police, and that was, I don’t know if we have really wrestled with the question of what the police are SUPPOSED to be doing, not just worry about how they are doing it.

    So I want to hear from you. Call or text us at 801-613-8145, visit us on social media and comment there. Tell us what do you think the job of the police is? If you are honest with yourself, and if you really take a moment think about it, you might be surprised at how complex that answer might turn out to be. But we need to come to a core understanding of what law enforcement is supposed to be doing, and then we can discuss methods of gathering data as to how effective they are doing it.

    Here are the 7 key statistics that we are going to start with to build our Use of Force Registry. First, we need to make sure we are measuring if the police are doing their job in a more complete sort of way. These are the starting 7 which we will expand upon as we move forward:

    1. Known Crimes – This would involve some type of survey mechanism to determine how many crimes were not reported to the police. The function of this metric would help to understand the way the police are viewed, and perhaps areas of concern relating to public trust, as well as how many crimes are being dealt with outside of law enforcement.
    2. Reported Crimes – or reported crimes to the police. It would also need to be determined if a call to the police actually meant there was sufficient evidence to think that a crime could have taken place. This may need to be determined as a percentage, but we would need a number to compare it to. Still have to figure this one out.
    3. Arrest Rates – This would relate to the reported crimes statistic, but only to the extent that it was determined that a crime could have taken place.
    4. Clearance rates – I am still unclear on why this metric still needs to be a part of things other than to leave space for harmonizing with the Federal level statistics gathering, or perhaps there is another way to define this. But I can’t just dismiss it yet. Perhaps this is better represented as an accurate arrest rate. Meaning how many people were arrested vs the number of crimes that were “cleared” to the prosecution. You could “clear” 3 people for one crime. This ratio might be interesting to consider.
    5. Conviction Rates – This would relate to the arrest rates. This would help us to determine how successful the transition is happening between Police and the prosecution bodies.
    6. Imprisonment Rates – How many people were convicted and actually served time vs. some other means of crime resolution. This could be settlements, or we could consider how alternative forms of sentencing were utilized vs incarceration.
    7. Crime Resolution Rates – This statistic is an interesting one and where Shima’s article spends more time than we did in the interview. The idea that police should have more tools at their disposal than simply the arrest metric is worth exploring.

      This is all where we will go next in exploring some solutions for the issues surrounding police statistics, uses of force, and police reform. So stay tuned.


    Use of Force Registry: Part 1 Mar 23, 2021
    Show notes

    There has been a growing discussion, and debate, on the issues of police brutality. The stories of George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor are some of the notable stories that have brought this issue to the forefront in recent years. However, other names and other stories have been fueling a fire for decades. But what is the real problem, and therefore what is the real answer?

    Some have proposed that the development of a “Use of Force Registry” will help make the police accountable to the public, and where the public can take action in reducing such uses of force. The FBI gathers some data on uses of force, but how accessible and meaningful is this data? Are these incidents self-reported and if so using what criteria? As we will see, this issue is very complicated, and nuanced. What one person may call a use of force, is not considered by another to be the same. Even then, just because there is a use of force, does it mean that it was unjustified? We hope to develop and propose legislation for a use of force registry that we feel will help to address a complex but urgent issue, on this episode of Freelance Legislator.

    Goal:

    Generate ordinance language for a use of force registry that can be used by cities, or counties, or states, to increase transparency and accountability.

    Steps:

    1. Identify Applicable Core Governance Principles
    2. Identify stake holders
    3. Gather input from stake holders and public
    4. Craft starting legislation language
    5. Harmonize input from public, stake holders with principled ordinance.
    6. Present ordinance for public consumption and use

    The issue of force is one that comes up in conversations about government and government agents. Sometimes this use of force is considered justified, other times it is considered excessive force and is a felony. In the past couple of years we have seen an increase in the number of conversations and narratives surrounding police brutality, and the use of force by those whom we often refer to as “peace officers.”

    At the heart of this issue should be the governing principle that executive branch of the city, state, or other government, has the responsibility of law enforcement. These individuals are elected by the will and voice of the people and the police are public servants, or perhaps we should say public service providers (you know, to avoid any slavery connotations). While the legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch is tasked with…well, executing or enforcing those laws. Mayors, Governors, Presidents, all are considered the executive in charge of enforcing the laws passed by the legislators. But, again, elected officials, and law enforcement, are there FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around.

    Let me give an example to help illustrate this: I don’t mean to sound dismissive or demeaning towards the law enforcement community, but they are sort of like the customer service agents of the legislators of government. They don’t necessarily make the policies, that is the job of the corporate executives; but they are the ones on the front lines and having to enforce the laws or policies.

    While we may be upset at the customer service agents for a company’s return policy for example, yelling at the customer service person isn’t likely to change the policy. However, the way in which a customer service agent enacts or functions within that policy is up to each agent. You can be a kind and understanding customer service agent, or you can be mean, cold, dismissive, and annoyed by the presence of other human beings. So, the issue of police brutality, or excessive force by law enforcement is not an easy one. Are we upset at the customer service agent, or are we really more upset at the corporate policy? Maybe its both, maybe we need to take a step back and make sure we are fully understanding what is happening before we try and get people fired as if that is going to solve the problem.

    Hence the need for a use of force registry. Right now the number of narratives and positions on this issue seems to be based on who is louder and more upset, rather than who has meaningful data that shows a clear path forward to a solution. So, let’s start there. Our goal again is to “generate ordinance language for a use of force registry that can be used by cities, or counties, to increase transparency and accountability.” That means we need to discuss the ways in which a registry can be used in powerful and productive ways that help protect the citizens, while also understanding that law enforcement are citizens too. And we all want to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Brandon Phinney

    Joining me on this episode from New Hampshire, is s a member of the Freelance Legislator team, Brandon Phinney. Brandon was a state representative in New Hampshire from 2017-2019. He served in the military, all before turning 30 years old. He brings with him years of experience in the political arena at the local and state level, and is helping us to formulate some ordinance language based on his research on this very topic from his home state of New Hampshire where they have a sort of “use of force registry” from which we are using as a starting point for our legislation.

    Christopher Walden

    Our guest on this episode is Christopher Walden, a law enforcement officer with over 20 years experience. He is joining us from the Salt Lake City area and has been involved on state committees in Utah, a state which saw over 80 bills presented this year relating to police reform. So he is particularly in tune with these issues.


    “Real Life Legislating” with Scott Lindsley Nov 18, 2020
    Show notes

    Can I make laws without being an elected official?

    Scott Lindsley

    Are there examples of everyday people taking part in the political process? Well…yes. This episode’s guest is proof that anyone can be involved in powerful and positive ways. This is the last in our “getting started” series of podcasts. This episode will help give you a better idea of what it will look and feel like to be a Freelance Legislator.

    Scott Lindsley, well, Scott is a pretty normal guy. I don’t mean that in a boring way, but I wanted to have him on Freelance Legislator because he is a regular guy with a regular job, but has chosen to be an active participant in the political process. He has been apart of efforts that have successfully (and not successfully) passed legislation–and he has never been an elected official. His story is an example of what I hope to see more of as we listen and grow together with Freelance Legislation. His story can help us to see our own potential to help be an informed but active participant in legislation designed to help preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    On this episode we reference something referred to as the Parable of Chesterton’s Fence, or the Fallacy of Chesterton’s gate. I first read this in an article by Cassandra Hedelius in Meridian Magazine back in 2015:

    “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

    I may refer to this parable (or story) from time to time throughout the shows. I feel that this helps us to take a more reasoned and balanced approach, perhaps a less contentious one as well. If we take the time to gain understanding of how things were, we may be more understanding of how things are, as well as how they can be in the future. Taking this approach will likely result in less name calling and criticism, and allow more space for appreciating that, perhaps one day, someone may come along and look at the legislation we make today and feel it too is no longer necessary, or that it needs changing. I for one would rather someone come to understand why we did what we did, prior to passing judgement on it.


    How to write a (bill) law Nov 18, 2020
    Show notes

    Writing a bill, or writing proposed legislation can seem like an intimidating task. But is it? With this foundational episode of Freelance Legislator we hope to arm you with the tools, to light the path forward for you, to take an educated and active part of the legislative process. You might be surprised at how little you need to know in order to get started with this process.

    This episode is part two in our foundational episodes. If you haven’t listened to our previous episode on How to read a (bill) law, please take a moment to go listen to that first. This episode features former legislator and lawyer, Ken Ivory. We address some of the mechanics of how a bill is composed and by whom (big secret, you don’t have to be a lawyer or be good at writing to be an effective leader with legislation). We also address questions we should ask when considering proposed legislation that will help us to write more effective legislation.

    What level of government should this law be written for? (city, county or parish, state, or federal)

    What is the section of code that this would impact?

    Is there another law in somewhere else in the country that we can use as a template?

    …And many more questions that are all worth asking when trying to write proposed legislation.

    Sit back, take some notes, and enjoy this episode of Freelance Legislator.


    How to read a (bill) law Nov 18, 2020
    Show notes

    How to read a law. This is one of our foundational episodes that will feature information for our discussions moving forward. Learning how to read proposed legislation can be a little messy. We often think that we have to be lawyers to understand what is going on. We hope to change that. This episode will help walk you through the various elements of what you see in a typical bill or proposed law.

    While we will use a bill from the Utah Legislature, we hope that the principles discussed will apply in some ways to the cities, counties, and states where you live. Links we mention in this episode:
    Utah State Legislature site: https://le.utah.gov
    Sample bill: H.B. 416 Penalties for Misconduct with Students

    Ken Ivory on the floor of the Utah State House of Representatives

    Our guest on this episode is Ken Ivory who is lawyer for over 20 years, and served as a Utah State Representative From 2011-2019. In 2019 Ken taught American Federalism at Utah Valley University. He currently serves as President of the American Lands Council. His unique experience as a lawyer, a professor, and as a former state representative makes his especially qualified to come on this episode on How to Read a Law, and our next and companion episode, How to Write a Law. Ken Ivory joins us via (socially distanced) video chat. So we invite you to sit back, take some notes, and be inspired to find ways to be a more educated and empowered citizen in our political and legislative process.


    Introduction to Freelance Legislator Nov 17, 2020
    Show notes

    What would happen if you removed politics from legislation?

    What if policy could be discussed without mention of party?

    What would our cities, states, and country look like if we worked together on creating laws instead of using laws and public policy as verbal ammunition in a war to win our votes?

    This is Freelance Legislator, and I’m your host, Nick Galieti.

    The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.“

    How do these words resonate with the current state of our country or the actions of our various levels of government? Do you feel that the government’s power comes from a consent of the governed? Or do you feel that the government, more often than not, acts upon its citizens, and treats your freedom as some to control rather than protect?

    America was first established by the people, for the people, and of the people. As was stated by Ezra Taft Benson who was secretary of agriculture under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.”

    In a day where government is seen as a transactional service provider for everything from Food, to funding subsidies for billion dollar industries, would it seem that crazy to assert that American Citizens have an unhealthy relationship with their government? Could it be that as citizens, we have become addicted to government?

    An old fable reads:

    The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe. For the axe was clever and convinced the trees that because his handle was wood he was one of them.

    The 2020 Presidential Election was scary, exciting, and contentious. But it also provided a microscope by which we are able to expose the many different infections in our collective thinking–infections that are slowly killing the ideals upon which this great country was founded. I, like many of you, have wondered what a private citizen can to do reduce if not eliminate the bickering, the blame game, the sheer volume of political punditry that pollutes our media and therefore the minds of so many into voting for this “axe” or that “axe.” I want to be involved beyond commenting on social media or yelling at the news about how dumb “the other” party’s politicians are.

    “Why don’t you run for office?” Some may say. I have thought about it, and was even ready to hit “send” on my official paperwork to declare candidacy. But, in some ways, running for office is playing the political game. You have to play the game even if you want to change the game. It’s hard to run for office and not get the mud of the system all over you. For another analogy, it doesn’t interest me to go play in their sandbox just to have them throw sand in my eyes and call me stupid. So, I decided, I will build my own sandbox.

    I am a realist in that I want to make a change, but I see that the machine of politics is designed to chew up and spit out principled leadership. There is an insulation that protects the politicians from the heat of the voters, or the chill of accountability that has cost the tax paying citizens so much that we as a nation are $27 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Decades of failures to govern in wisdom have created a problem so large that no rational mind can endorse the debt’s continued increase.

    One day, the idea came to me. I have been a podcaster for years now, and while I wouldn’t consider myself the best candidate for office, I have a love and passion for what government can and should be. Rather than spin my wheels campaigning with a low chance of getting elected, why not do what I can and use the voice I know how to use to be and influence for good in the world.

    This environment is where Freelance Legislator was born. Freelance Legislator is to be more than talk, this is to be action towards a greater good. With our episodes we will learn about the principles that should govern our laws and our leaders. But the greatest focus will be the creation of bills, of laws waiting to be enacted in your various cities, counties or parishes, your states, and maybe even at the Federal level.

    On this show we will produce several short series or seasons where each series will bring forward an idea for a law, then develop that idea into a law worth passing. Guests on our show, as well as you the audience, will have a chance to have your voice heard. We will shape the law together by tossing it around like stone in a river of ideas being honed and polished though the dictates of natural law. In the end we hope to present to the world legislation or policy that has input from constituents (not lobbyists), and will protect the rights of citizens, not increase our dependence on this growing, menacing creature of government we have today. Our website will house a growing database of vetted legislation free for the taking.

    Freelance Legislator is a movement. I want us all to be educated as citizens on how to read laws, how to write laws, and even how to get laws passed, without having to run for office. I don’t want a country of whiny citizens, I want a country full of well reasoned thinkers that value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    While I am a self-appointed freelance legislator, you can be too! Each one of us has the power to create and pass legislation with the help of our elected officials. We SHOULD BE freelance legislators. We will use the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and other founding documents as guides. We will also draw upon experts in appropriate areas to come to reasoned understanding of the issues. And in order to do that, there are a couple of rules to help guide this process:

    Rule #1 – We talk policy not party. Guests on this show will refrain from arguments that are based on, infused with, or rely on ad hominem attacks or appraisal of a position based on which politicians support or forward a particular policy. There will be no “Trump said this” or “Biden did that.” Our views on who is currently in office or who did what in the past is not productive and leads to anger, discord, and partisanship. Such discordance is how we have arrived in our current state; divided and losing sight of our potential to be a nation of liberty.

    Rule #2 – We are all learning. This show is one part educational and one part policy development. We will have crucial conversations that will involve coming to understand one another, not be combative with each other. We will learn from experts in law, governance, and public policy so we can learn more about what it really means to run a city, state, or country. In the end, we will all make mistakes, we will change or hone positions from time to time because there is much to learn that we are never taught in traditional schools. Learning what government is, does not teach us how government should run. Learning these things takes time, experience and patience. As Franklyn D Rosevelt said, “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” While the principle at the heart of this statement is true; Ironically, this country is a Constitutional republic, not a Democracy, thus further emphasizing the value of education with a little bit of irony.

    Point being, let’s go beyond the rhetoric of pundits, and let’s be wise, not excitable. So let’s learn together in this great experiment we call The United States of America.

    Lastly, rule #3 – Be genuine, but let’s have fun. This process should be engaging, and even at times funny. “Virtue signaling” and “being offended” are useless weapons of rhetoric that do nothing to bring harmony or improve the world. I believe in right and wrong, but I don’t believe that morals require our outrage to survive.

    One last “rule”, we’ll, more of a guideline really. I want to introduce a saying to the world that says volumes in a tongue and cheek sort of way. It’s quite simple and easy to remember, it goes: Sometimes grandpas die. That’s it, “sometimes grandpas die.” While that seems random, that’s the point. We may put forth the best of intentions into law, sometimes things just happen that are out of our control. While there is a temptation to try and manage all contingencies and feel like we have the power to control all the variables that we may envision or encounter, despite our best thinking and effort, sometimes grandpas die. This is meant to serve as a reminder that we can sometimes get bogged down, even in writing or commenting and refining legislation, with the “what if’s” or the notion that there is perfection in law or our legal system. The reason the system can endure is its ability to recognize its own flaws and to make improvements.

    Where do we go from here?

    Before proceeding it is important that we all take our oath. While we can’t really enforce this oath, I hope you find value in the experience all the same. I propose that the oath you take as an audience be similar to the one that legislators take when they accept elected office. But this time, recognize that you are saying it that to your neighbors, your family, your friends rather to constituents.

    I propose the following text for the oath:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States. That I will honor each individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I will respect both the limits and freedoms this commitment implies for both the actions of government as well as my actions as a citizen.”

    I will repeat it now with you following along should you choose.

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States. That I will honor each individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I will respect both the limits and freedoms this commitment implies for both the actions of government as well as my actions as a citizen.”

    Thank you.

    Following this introductory episode are pre-requisites for our audience to more fully engage in what we hope to accomplish. First, we have a class on “How to read a law.” While that may sound sort of elementary, it is not. Legislation is not like reading a news or blog article. There is a skill to understanding not only the language that is used, but also the format in which the bills are crafted, as well as what that language may imply. This episode will give you the skills you need to learn how to read a law, patiently, and with wisdom and order.

    The next episode is how to write a law. This will build on what we learned in the how to read a law episode, but will turn that into something actionable and practical. Each city, state, and governing body will likely have some unique elements to how their laws are crafted. But the principles we will teach you can be applied just about anywhere or in any jurisdiction. Feel free to become familiar with those differences when preparing legislation for your area.

    We will share stories of people who have been a part of the legislative process from a non-elected point of view. These are real people that share their experiences, both successes and failures along the way.

    After these three introductory episodes set the foundation for our work, we will introduce our first proposed law to the audience. The text for these laws will be contained and worked over through our website FreelanceLegislator.com Here you can read the text, comment on parts, even offer suggested word changes. This is not social media. Comments like “this is stupid,” or, “you’re an idiot” will be deleted. While you may have the right to express those sentiments, you don’t have the right to express them everywhere and whenever you want. That being said, we will moderate away idiotic comments, while respecting the free flow of constructive ideas and discussion. Our website is our virtual private property, please respect that. For those of you that see moderation of comments as a restriction of your first amendment rights….just keep listening to Freelance Legislator “we will learn you yet.”

    When it’s all said and done, if you like the bill that we create, we encourage you to bring it to your local leaders or governing legislators. We hope you go to them with pre-vetted work that will get the process started with local legislative and legal staff to make it work within local laws and codes.

    Freelance Legislator is the people’s think tank, but that system requires someone outside of the system to administer it, if it is to remain a healthy and unpolluted resource. Hence the name Freelance Legislator.

    Thank you for listening, and thank you for caring about our country, our states, and our cities enough to jump on board and take this ride with us. I don’t have all the answers, but I want as many answers as I can get to the questions of how govern better. I promise to bring you some of the best thinkers on these subjects, as well as compelling interviews that will help us all think a little more, and a little better when it comes to matters of politics and legislation. Please reach out to us with your ideas and thoughts, and don’t forget to give us a review on your favorite podcasting platform. Want to be a part of this show? Visit FreelanceLegislator.com and look for our “I have something to say” button. This will allow you to send us a virtual voicemail. If we find what you have to say to be worth sharing, we will put it on the show and include it where appropriate. Thanks for listening! I am Nick Galieti, and this is Freelance Legislator.


    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights