 Joe Laurier, editor-in-chief of Consortium News, a question about discovery. Are your concerns, especially now that you've included the CIA as a defendant, that they will invoke, the government will invoke state secrets, privileged to prevent any discovery whatsoever? Listen, we don't think this will be an easy task. We know the previous administration has essentially tried to block every subpoena issued. In fact, my understanding is that Michael Pompeo's even not complying with the Spanish subpoena. So discovery will be a difficult process. However, we will have a federal court judge who presumably will be non-biased, who will insist that certain documents, certain individuals be produced and be presented. So that's a process we're gonna have, we're willing to take on. Now Pompeo, you're assuming as a private individual, correct? Yes, he was assuming as a private individual because at the time he was actually director of the CIA and there's a law out there, there's precedent out there, which Bob can speak to, which allows you to sue the person presiding over that agency. Just a quick followup on whether this can affect the extradition proceedings at all. Obviously, even Vanessa Barraza at the lowest court heard about this, there was testimony from witnesses in the UC global case in Madrid. So she and the high court and the Supreme Court didn't even take the case. And then ultimately pretty Patel have all been aware of this thing that the lawsuit, your lawsuit is alleging, that can inspire a lot of confidence that would actually impact the decision on the extradition, would it? I don't necessarily agree that they wouldn't take it. That case is pending. We know that there's a lot of competences. We know that there's a, if you will, a lot of it is sealed, but a good amount has come out. A lot of information has come out, which would lead us to the conclusions that are presented in the complaint. Now what I meant was that the British courts and the home secretary have gone ahead with the extradition, even though they're all aware of what you're alleging pretty much that came out earlier. That's true, but as the first questionnaire asked, the British courts are not looking at it from a US constitutional eye. We are looking at it purely based on the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment does not let you do that. And that was never presented to the British courts or even to the Spanish courts. Thank you. Thank you very much.