Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[AZlawyer]

I have been trying to figure out why, this long date after the trial, Casey Anthony's team of lawyers seem to be continuing to support her.

My heart and head tell me that they should, at this point, have fulfilled whatever legal obligation they had to represent her in an indigent status. But my heart and head have no legal experience or knowledge.

At what point does an attorney's obligation officially end when they are defending a client in an indigent status? Isn't this defense team way past that point now? It makes me suspicious of what reason there could be for JB, CM, LF, et al to continue their work at this stage. Any ideas? TIA!

I believe their obligation ended when the Notice of Appeal was filed, although it appears CM and his people took on an obligation to represent her on appeal as well by filing a brief.

Keep in mind none of them had any obligation to represent her in the first place. It's not as if they were appointed by the court.

IMO they continue to hang around because they hope to keep their names in the limelight.

 

[Katprint]

I believe their obligation ended when the Notice of Appeal was filed, although it appears CM and his people took on an obligation to represent her on appeal as well by filing a brief.

Keep in mind none of them had any obligation to represent her in the first place. It's not as if they were appointed by the court.

IMO they continue to hang around because they hope to keep their names in the limelight.

I agree. I remember CM being a talking head before he joined the defense team, and I think JB, CM and probably other defense team members are hoping to transition from practicing law to hosting true crime / reality-TV type shows. So, they have to keep their names in the media until they get those TV show contracts signed.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[eve80]

I also have a question to the lawyers.

I heard that a magazine/newspaper in FL filed some paperwork to release all the information and files that were withheld from the public (sealed records). Do you think it will happen? Is it usual to unseal records once the trial is over and the defendant has been freed?

Thank you in advance for taking your time to answer this.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Time Out!!! :whistle:​

With all due respect,

It has been determined that I am qualified to answer legal questions.

I do not feel it is appropriate for me to speculate as to the motivations of other attorneys. I do not consider that to be a "legal question." This is solely my humble opinion.

:crystalball:

While I own a crystal ball, and have in fact kept it on my desk for decades, it doesn't really work. I have often pointed that out.

I keep it merely to emphasize that I do not have the ability to read minds and I cannot predict the future outcome of any criminal proceeding.

I may not agree with the actions of a particular attorney but I cannot participate in turning this thread into a vehicle of condemnation.

While I might analyze a legal maneuver, in the criminal trial venue, and question the wisdom; while I might suggest that certain tactics in the world of criminal advocacy are ill-advised.....
And I might occasionally let my cynical side go unfettered,

I cannot get inside the heads of a particular defense team and tell you what motivates them, why they do this and why they do that.

Perhaps we can deputize a vetted psych expert for that task.

I ask you to keep in mind that the attorneys on this thread give freely of their time and expertise. For me, a good part of it is done because it is a form of giving back. It is done because there are good people here and there is a great sense of satisfaction in helping out.

I realize great care goes into formulating these questions you pose.

I acknowledge that a lack of expertise simply means that your life choices and career choices were not the same as mine.
I am speaking for myself. I address my own motivations.

Please don't expect me to crucify a group of attorneys, to this extent, in the name of giving an expert opinion. That is not my area of expertise......

Thank you very much for allowing this clarification.

opinion of MH:wolf: taking a deep breath, and going to :chillout:


do I need to flag my own post?:innocent:

 

[MissJames]

As long as you don't call her Lacey Banthony. :innocent:

This is not legal advice. This is a joke. :seeya: Everyone wave "hi" to the State Bar of AZ....



Actually I don't remember seeing that on her probation order. But many times it's pretty difficult and not worth the trouble to prove someone lied. Let's wait for the depo and see if she says anything that might qualify.

:seeya:Hi AZ State Bar :seeya: She's kidding . Really,we never listen to her :innocent:

How about Tracy Ynohtna :waitasec: OR Toni Case :great:

 

[AZlawyer]

I also have a question to the lawyers.

I heard that a magazine/newspaper in FL filed some paperwork to release all the information and files that were withheld from the public (sealed records). Do you think it will happen? Is it usual to unseal records once the trial is over and the defendant has been freed?

Thank you in advance for taking your time to answer this.

I think the sealed items SHOULD be released. Not sure if they WILL be released. Whether or not things are released generally depends on the reason for them being sealed in the first place and whether or not that reason is still true. So, in this case, for example, the video of Casey's reaction to Caylee's body being found was sealed so that no potential jurors would see it. That's no longer a concern, so IMO it should be released.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

I agree with AZ.

Here's the decision to seal the videotape.


http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/0617/19779227.pdf

It's all about preserving the right to a fair trial and about avoidance of prejudice and the jury pool.

That is now a non issue. It should be unsealed and released.

Motions are pending for hearing. We'll see.

Meanwhile, there are motions pending relative to the unsealing of the accounting that was provided when defense team was arguing for more public monies.


http://www2.tbo.com/mgmedia/file/42/casey-anthony-orlando-sentinel-motion-seeking-rele/

Media argues that the sealing of the documents provided as a part of the accounting (where oh where is the :gift::dramaqueen::gift:$200,000.000 plus) by the defense
did not comply with the letter of the law.
Can't wait for those hearings.:applause:

I think the public deserves to know why so much money was provided to one who had so much money.......


MH :wolf:
opinion

As long as we're at it:

Speaking of :sweep: sweeping the carpet under the rug:

:coffeews:
Somebody should ask for the cannister with the carpet sample to be unsealed.

Twelve people will be invited...maybe a few alternates.......

 

[rotterdam]

I have a general question in regards to ethics as it applies to (criminal defense) attorneys.
Is there such a thing as a Hippocratic oath similar to MD's, that attorneys take?
Like , I will not do any harm in any form to my client during but also after the trial.
Reason for asking, is that, mainly the lead attorney, during the post Anthony trial, keeps spouting verbiage, either directly or indirectly(thru TMZ), that actually is designed IMO, to keep the general public negatively inflamed about their previous client KC, and fueling continuing media exposure for their own ,obviously, financial/opportunistic gain.
Sorry, if this is a silly/loaded question but I just had to ask.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

So, KC was convicted of lying to police, and LDB is trying to have KC pay for the cost of the investigation.

My question is, is the state of Florida going to try to recover the cost of the entire investigation and prosecution over the past 3 years? Or will the state of Florida only be able to recover the costs related to the 4 counts of lying to police?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Time Out!!! :whistle:​

With all due respect,

It has been determined that I am qualified to answer legal questions.

I do not feel it is appropriate for me to speculate as to the motivations of other attorneys. I do not consider that to be a "legal question." This is solely my humble opinion.

:crystalball:

While I own a crystal ball, and have in fact kept it on my desk for decades, it doesn't really work. I have often pointed that out.

I keep it merely to emphasize that I do not have the ability to read minds and I cannot predict the future outcome of any criminal proceeding.

I may not agree with the actions of a particular attorney but I cannot participate in turning this thread into a vehicle of condemnation.

While I might analyze a legal maneuver, in the criminal trial venue, and question the wisdom; while I might suggest that certain tactics in the world of criminal advocacy are ill-advised.....
And I might occasionally let my cynical side go unfettered,

I cannot get inside the heads of a particular defense team and tell you what motivates them, why they do this and why they do that.

Perhaps we can deputize a vetted psych expert for that task.

I ask you to keep in mind that the attorneys on this thread give freely of their time and expertise. For me, a good part of it is done because it is a form of giving back. It is done because there are good people here and there is a great sense of satisfaction in helping out.

I realize great care goes into formulating these questions you pose.

I acknowledge that a lack of expertise simply means that your life choices and career choices were not the same as mine.
I am speaking for myself. I address my own motivations.

Please don't expect me to crucify a group of attorneys, to this extent, in the name of giving an expert opinion. That is not my area of expertise......

Thank you very much for allowing this clarification.

opinion of MH:wolf: taking a deep breath, and going to :chillout:


do I need to flag my own post?:innocent:

Sorry, MH. I had no idea my question was out of line. Please forgive.

 

[missm]

There has been talk of a trust being set up for Casey. Could the DT do this and funnel funds into a trust for her? And then those funds couldn't be touched or used for lawsuits or payments she owes? I don't know much about trusts, but I'm worried the DT has found a loophole to keep Casey indigent legally.

I think this question got missed. I am also very interested in the answer. TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

There has been talk of a trust being set up for Casey. Could the DT do this and funnel funds into a trust for her? And then those funds couldn't be touched or used for lawsuits or payments she owes? I don't know much about trusts, but I'm worried the DT has found a loophole to keep Casey indigent legally.

I think this question got missed. I am also very interested in the answer. TIA!

Any trust that Casey could access for legal fees would be considered an asset for purposes of an indigency petition.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

As I understand probation, one of the conditions involves telling the truth.
If FCA were to lie under oath in a deposition, could that be considered a
VOP ?

Lying under oath at a deposition is a form of perjury and therefore it is a crime.

While it would not be a violation of probation per se....it would have the potential to trigger a hearing on whether or not a violation of probation had occurred.

The decision as to whether or not it is a VOP would be made in Court.

If violation is found, incarceration seems inevitable.

Excuse me oke:

She lied again Lemme at her:sumo:.... We have some :justice: on tap. :toast:


And no, a conviction would not be necessary to trigger those VOP proceedings. :dance: Figured you'd want to know that.

So, KC was convicted of lying to police, and LDB is trying to have KC pay for the cost of the investigation.

My question is, is the state of Florida going to try to recover the cost of the entire investigation and prosecution over the past 3 years? Or will the state of Florida only be able to recover the costs related to the 4 counts of lying to police?

That is still a whopping sum of money, we're talking about.

The motion to recover those costs is done pursuant to stautory authority:

938.27 Judgment for costs on conviction.—
(1) In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies. The court shall include these costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person. For purposes of this section, “convicted” means a determination of guilt, or of violation of probation or community control, which is a result of a plea, trial, or violation proceeding, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.

Only the convictions fall within the parameters of the statute.

Isn't the current asking price in the 100's of thousands though.
You have very intelligent prosecutors who are tying the costs together....
Everything flows from the lies, regardless of whether or not the acquittal on the murder happened.

i.e.
Acquittal :ignore: Let's charge for everything anyway. ....as long as there is a legal basis and argument.:bricks: oh goodie more bills we can add in.

That's how I read the statute.....seems fair to me.

MH:wolfpinion

I should add a view of the State's motion which I just double-checked.

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Repayment-Motion-0706.pdf.

As we see, it is brought pursuant to 938.27. OK, then.

 

[rotterdam]

Lying under oath at a deposition is a form of perjury and therefore it is a crime.

While it would not be a violation of probation per se....it would have the potential to trigger a hearing on whether or not a violation of probation had occurred.

The decision as to whether or not it is a VOP would be made in Court.

If violation is found, incarceration seems inevitable.

Excuse me oke:

She lied again Lemme at her:sumo:.... We have some :justice: on tap. :toast:


And no, a conviction would not be necessary to trigger those VOP proceedings. :dance: Figured you'd want to know that.




That is still a whopping sum of money, we're talking about.

The motion to recover those costs is done pursuant to stautory authority:

938.27 Judgment for costs on conviction.—
(1) In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies. The court shall include these costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person. For purposes of this section, “convicted” means a determination of guilt, or of violation of probation or community control, which is a result of a plea, trial, or violation proceeding, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.

Only the convictions fall within the parameters of the statute.

Isn't the current asking price in the 100's of thousands though.
You have very intelligent prosecutors who are tying the costs together....
Everything flows from the lies, regardless of whether or not the acquittal on the murder happened.

i.e.
Acquittal :ignore: Let's charge for everything anyway. ....as long as there is a legal basis and argument.:bricks: oh goodie more bills we can add in.

That's how I read the statute.....seems fair to me.

MH:wolfpinion

I should add a view of the State's motion which I just double-checked.

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Repayment-Motion-0706.pdf.

As we see, it is brought pursuant to 938.27. OK, then.

Wow, if I read it right, that means that the cost occurred also applies to the seven charges for which adjudication was withheld? In other words all thirteen charges are in the picture for which a guilty plea was entered, regardless if no probation violation. Correct?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Lying under oath at a deposition is a form of perjury and therefore it is a crime.

While it would not be a violation of probation per se....it would have the potential to trigger a hearing on whether or not a violation of probation had occurred.

The decision as to whether or not it is a VOP would be made in Court.

If violation is found, incarceration seems inevitable.

Excuse me oke:

She lied again Lemme at her:sumo:.... We have some :justice: on tap. :toast:


And no, a conviction would not be necessary to trigger those VOP proceedings. :dance: Figured you'd want to know that.




That is still a whopping sum of money, we're talking about.

The motion to recover those costs is done pursuant to stautory authority:

938.27 Judgment for costs on conviction.—
(1) In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies. The court shall include these costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person. For purposes of this section, “convicted” means a determination of guilt, or of violation of probation or community control, which is a result of a plea, trial, or violation proceeding, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.

Only the convictions fall within the parameters of the statute.

Isn't the current asking price in the 100's of thousands though.
You have very intelligent prosecutors who are tying the costs together....
Everything flows from the lies, regardless of whether or not the acquittal on the murder happened.

i.e.
Acquittal :ignore: Let's charge for everything anyway. ....as long as there is a legal basis and argument.:bricks: oh goodie more bills we can add in.

That's how I read the statute.....seems fair to me.

MH:wolfpinion

I should add a view of the State's motion which I just double-checked.

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Repayment-Motion-0706.pdf.

As we see, it is brought pursuant to 938.27. OK, then.

Thanks MH.

You gotta love the law, which I am certain you do .

The statute 938.27 is not black and white to me, lol, probably because I am not a lawyer. It says the convicted is liable for all investigative and prosecution costs, but does not talk about multiple charges, some convictions, some acquittals, so it leaves me confused. Are there other statutes like (made up) 938.44, that deals with multiple charges?

KC was convicted of the four counts of lying, and since the investigators were repeatedly telling her she was lying at the theme park, and said they had already checked out her stories, and she was definately lying. Although, they had not arrested and mirandized her at that point, which was another sticky wicket, the lies occurred during this questioning, and were either proven to be lies very soon thereafter, or had already been proven to be lies. Had she been charged there and then for the four counts of lying to police, there was very little further investigation needed to prove these lies, and have her convicted of 4 counts of lying to police.

In the motion, LDB wants HHBP to issue a court order(final judgement) for KC to pay for special costs. I am sure there will be, or already is a detailed list of these special costs.

You state the prosecution is tying all these costs together. In the case of KC, I tend to think, whatever. However, in case this was happening to my daughter, I have to say, whoa, hold on. They want her to pay for the cost of a sniffer machine, and an entomologist, among other things, that have little or nothing to do with gaining a conviction for her lies.

Will we be looking at yet another appeal, after HHBP issues a final judgement? Seems the DT has appealed pretty much everything so far, so will this be any different?

Thanks to all the lawyers in this thread, that have been very helpful to so many of us whose knowledge of the law, is lets say, susceptible to improvement

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Wow, if I read it right, that means that the cost occurred also applies to the seven charges for which adjudication was withheld? In other words all thirteen charges are in the picture for which a guilty plea was entered, regardless if no probation violation. Correct?

Thanks MH.

You gotta love the law, which I am certain you do .

The statute 938.27 is not black and white to me, lol, probably because I am not a lawyer. It says the convicted is liable for all investigative and prosecution costs, but does not talk about multiple charges, some convictions, some acquittals, so it leaves me confused. Are there other statutes like (made up) 938.44, that deals with multiple charges?

KC was convicted of the four counts of lying, and since the investigators were repeatedly telling her she was lying at the theme park, and said they had already checked out her stories, and she was definately lying. Although, they had not arrested and mirandized her at that point, which was another sticky wicket, the lies occurred during this questioning, and were either proven to be lies very soon thereafter, or had already been proven to be lies. Had she been charged there and then for the four counts of lying to police, there was very little further investigation needed to prove these lies, and have her convicted of 4 counts of lying to police.

In the motion, LDB wants HHBP to issue a court order(final judgement) for KC to pay for special costs. I am sure there will be, or already is a detailed list of these special costs.

You state the prosecution is tying all these costs together. In the case of KC, I tend to think, whatever. However, in case this was happening to my daughter, I have to say, whoa, hold on. They want her to pay for the cost of a sniffer machine, and an entomologist, among other things, that have little or nothing to do with gaining a conviction for her lies.

Will we be looking at yet another appeal, after HHBP issues a final judgement? Seems the DT has appealed pretty much everything so far, so will this be any different?

Thanks to all the lawyers in this thread, that have been very helpful to so many of us whose knowledge of the law, is lets say, susceptible to improvement

The costs we are talking about relate to the murder trial and the issues related to the lying convictions.

Remember, the withholding of adjudication is not a conviction; The statute looks for a conviction.

The check fraud plea resulted of course in the entry of guilty findings on some of the felonies. Judge Strickland addressed the questions concerning costs to be paid by the defendant. I believe the final tally from back then, for those cases was around $5,000. I 'd need to check it though.

Take a look at this Florida decision .

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1527928.html



Notably:

The only limitations that have been recognized by Florida courts in construing the term “cost of prosecution” are that courts have not permitted costs of judicial administration to be assessed. See Mickler v. State, 682 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding juror costs and state attorneys' fees improperly assessed as a cost of prosecution); Watson v. State, 662 So.2d 969, 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding state attorney fees improperly assessed as a cost of prosecution); Williams v. State, 596 So.2d 758, 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (noting judicial salaries, clerical and reportorial services, or juror reimbursements cannot be properly assessed as a cost of prosecution). Accordingly, the trial court has broad discretion to determine the amount and type of costs of prosecution to be assessed against a convicted person. See § 938.27(4), Fla. Stat. (2007).


The assessment is not simply about the costs of proving the lie is a lie.
Look at the events which flowed from the lies....look at investigative costs.

Don't get too caught up in the notion of multiple charges. All it takes is one conviction to have this statute kicked into overdrive.

Believe me, having a grasp of the law does not always make things black and white. In fact, it can have the opposite effect.:scream:
We can take an area that is crystal clear, black & white, and turn it into a legal analysis/debate which can result in: Caution dense fog zone.
It's not a negative thing. As a defendant, you want a lawyer who can make a sound legal argument, backed by law and cases, no matter what the circumstances....:soldier: Using the same case, or the same statute, as a sword & then as a shield....why not?



Yes an appeal is proper under the law. The above case was an appeal from a determination of the amount owed under 938.27.
My take on the appeal, if it happens:

Defense Team:


"YooHoo!!! Appellate Court. We're baaaack. :rollercoaster: Here we are again"


Appellate Court:
:greetings: You again?:denied:

The chapter is lengthy. A link so that you can check other sections.
http://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0938/0938.html


MH :wolf:
opinion

Yes, the law is a passion. It goes back to that old adage:

"The Law is a Jealous Mistress." :whip:

 

[Tulessa]

The costs we are talking about relate to the murder trial and the issues related to the lying convictions.

Remember, the withholding of adjudication is not a conviction; The statute looks for a conviction.

The check fraud plea resulted of course in the entry of guilty findings on some of the felonies. Judge Strickland addressed the questions concerning costs to be paid by the defendant. I believe the final tally from back then, for those cases was around $5,000. I 'd need to check it though.

Take a look at this Florida decision .

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1527928.html



Notably:

The only limitations that have been recognized by Florida courts in construing the term “cost of prosecution” are that courts have not permitted costs of judicial administration to be assessed. See Mickler v. State, 682 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding juror costs and state attorneys' fees improperly assessed as a cost of prosecution); Watson v. State, 662 So.2d 969, 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding state attorney fees improperly assessed as a cost of prosecution); Williams v. State, 596 So.2d 758, 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (noting judicial salaries, clerical and reportorial services, or juror reimbursements cannot be properly assessed as a cost of prosecution). Accordingly, the trial court has broad discretion to determine the amount and type of costs of prosecution to be assessed against a convicted person. See § 938.27(4), Fla. Stat. (2007).


The assessment is not simply about the costs of proving the lie is a lie.
Look at the events which flowed from the lies....look at investigative costs.

Don't get too caught up in the notion of multiple charges. All it takes is one conviction to have this statute kicked into overdrive.

Believe me, having a grasp of the law does not always make things black and white. In fact, it can have the opposite effect.:scream:
We can take an area that is crystal clear, black & white, and turn it into a legal analysis/debate which can result in: Caution dense fog zone.
It's not a negative thing. As a defendant, you want a lawyer who can make a sound legal argument, backed by law and cases, no matter what the circumstances....:soldier: Using the same case, or the same statute, as a sword & then as a shield....why not?



Yes an appeal is proper under the law. The above case was an appeal from a determination of the amount owed under 938.27.
My take on the appeal, if it happens:

Defense Team:


"YooHoo!!! Appellate Court. We're baaaack. :rollercoaster: Here we are again"


Appellate Court:
:greetings: You again?:denied:

The chapter is lengthy. A link so that you can check other sections.
http://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0938/0938.html


MH :wolf:
opinion

Yes, the law is a passion. It goes back to that old adage:

"The Law is a Jealous Mistress." :whip:

So sorry for the O/T, but when I'm having a bad day(which are a lot lately), I come here to read your post to get my daily chuckle.

 

[allycat1208]

I just read that Casey will use the 5th amendment to remain silent at her deposition for the Zenaida Gonzales case. Someone else just reminded me she's allowed to do this because of her appeal on the lying convictions. This means she will not have to testify for the civil case until her lying convictions are decided on? How will it be decided if her lying convictions are upheld? Just another judge and hearing?

 

[AZlawyer]

I just read that Casey will use the 5th amendment to remain silent at her deposition for the Zenaida Gonzales case. Someone else just reminded me she's allowed to do this because of her appeal on the lying convictions. This means she will not have to testify for the civil case until her lying convictions are decided on? How will it be decided if her lying convictions are upheld? Just another judge and hearing?

I agree that she can take the 5th until her appeal is resolved, on almost every interesting question. She can be made to appear at the depo--she just doesn't have to answer the questions that relate to the lying charges. Which most of them will. But because this is a civil case rather than a criminal case, anything on which she takes the 5th can be counted as an admission.

I think it is a strategic error for ZG's lawyers to take her depo while the appeal is pending. IMO they are not taking the depo to help ZG's case directly--they are taking it to force Casey to answer questions about Caylee's murder and thereby gain public support. If that's their goal, they should wait until after the appeal is over. If they take the depo now, they might not be permitted to take it again after the appeal is over, because the judge will say, "Why do you need to take her depo again if all the 5th amd. answers count as admissions anyway?"

 

[CarolinaWoman]

When one is declared indigent by a court order as Casey Anthony was in 2010, is there a time limit on it. Is it renewed every so many years? My question really is ... how does one become un-indigent(?) (probably not a word solvent maybe.) Does one have to return to court to have the indigent order lifted?

I appreciate all of the attorneys taking time to answer questions.