 international criminal investigations. You have to know more about that because that's happening because it's a more international crime, crimes against humanity and the like. So here we are on Transitional Justice. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Think Tech and we have our old friend Nicholas Susman-Haran from Bogota, Colombia, talking to us about some of the elements of how you do investigations of international crimes. Welcome to the show, Nicholas. Jay-Jay, and it's always a pleasure to be here talking to you and our dear audience. Yes, absolutely. So today really is a study of CSOs and what they do, how they fit, what they mean, their past, present and future. What is the CSO? Right. So CSOs are organizations, either formal or informal, of people from communities that get together to do something, right? In the case of investigations, they care about the crimes or the human rights abuses going on in their communities, in their villages, in their towns, and they just decide to come together to address that issue, either to support other organizations doing it or in many times, in the absence of other actors that have to jump in and do the things where they decide to take matters in their own hands and try to make a difference. What does that stand for? It's a global society organization. That's what they stand for. Okay. And is it limited to Bogota or Columbia or Latin America or is it everywhere? No, it's a global issue. I think it's just natural to humanity and to people caring about their issues. So they are worldwide and they just happen, right? Now we call them like that, but community coordination has been something in existence since forever, I would say. So this sounds like a group, a mission that would help a project expedite justice in its investigations. Am I right? Yeah. Yeah, usually we work with them and it's essential for the success of an investigation to work with local organizations. So in order to do that, you might have to approach them and you have to develop trust with them. They have to know who you are. You have to know who they are. How do you do that? How do you approach them? Well, I think that's the most challenging part of building that relationship, right? These are difficult contexts where crimes are acquiring or accord with communities that were deeply struck by violence and that can be full of distrust because of that, right? Because also there's a wide variety of actors with a lot of interests and it's hard to know who's who, right? And who's really trustworthy and who isn't. So there are different ways to do that. Sometimes someone that knows you from before just introduces you to the organization. It can be donors, it can be other organizations that you have worked on, it could be some governmental organizations and other times you're just cold calling people, trying to have a call to introduce yourself and to offer support. And I would say that's the best way of creating a trust-based relationship, right? First, acknowledging the importance of these organizations in their own context. They are the ones who know what's going on and then just tell them that you're willing to support them to provide something to increase their capacity to do things and feel a gap that maybe other actors are not feeling and that they need to feel. Okay, can you give me an example of the support you might provide? Yeah, absolutely. For example, knowledge of which crimes were committed, right? Terms as the ones you were mentioning, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, these are terms that are very, they're impactful, right? And they are lightly used many times by the media, by political actors to address different types of situations, right? And this creates some sort of expectations regarding justice, for example. And then when it comes to investigations, they don't mean this light sense that is widely used, but they have, well, there are crimes like any other crime, right? They have some elements and if you want to investigate them and pursue justice, you need to know what it entails, right? And many times civil society organizations do not have this knowledge because of their background, because they are just not legal organizations or something like that. So we bring that type of knowledge to help them understand what this means and what they can do with that situation they're facing in the ground. Use the word elements and it takes me back to law school. I want to remind everybody that Nicholas is a lawyer. And when he looks at crimes, he looks like every lawyer at the elements of the crime, ABCD. And without that, you really can't get the first base. And people in the CSOs don't necessarily know about criminal law and elements of crimes and so you have to tell them. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. So you meet with them and train them? Do you meet with them and tell them about these things? Do you visit them? Do they visit you? Is there a classroom involved here? Well, it depends. It depends, but usually there's at least in PEJs, project expert justice, way of operation, a component of training always. Actually, we call it capacity building, right? So what you would like at the end is this CSOs, the civil society organizations, to be able to conduct these activities by themselves, right? And to really stand as partners, as peers with you to do the thing. So you have to train them, of course, to bring that knowledge to them. So yeah, usually we go there. It all depends on the security situations, or we have different ways of doing it through remote environments, through recorded materials, through recorded materials with Q&A sessions. It all depends on the context. It all depends on the conditions on the ground, on the resources available. But we try to always be there and bring the knowledge to them instead of getting them out of their context. You want to bring always information into their reality. Why does the word vigilante come to mind? That's a good question. That's a good question. And I think it's maybe the call for action that CSOs are doing. And as I was mentioning, these are people who care about their reality and that when they see that something very serious and bad is happening and no one is paying enough attention or doing enough to address it, they take matters into their own hands and try to build something to fix the situation to see if they can get the authorities to act when there's no action. So of course, there's people trying to bring remedies to situations that are not being addressed perhaps by the ones who have to do it. We have Netflix now in the time of COVID and we have Prime Video with Amazon in the time of COVID. Every second movie is about this kind of thing, about people taking matters into their own hands and seeking investigation, seeking truth because the government, the police, are not up to it. And is that what's happening here with the CSO? Are they doing this because they don't feel the government and the police and the intelligence organizations are up to it? So I would say it's more complex than that, but it certainly has that element, right? Yeah, many times it happens that the government is the one involved in committing the atrocity. So of course, they're not interested. That's one possibility and we see that frequently. The other thing is that usually this happened in marginalized impoverished communities with little state presence. So they take situations in their own hands, of course. And in these places, this type of crimes occur frequently. They can even become part of the reality. So maybe they're not addressed in the proper way. Maybe the government doesn't have their resources or doesn't care enough. But what is clear is that these communities do care enough because this is affecting their own realities, right? They're there to leave it. The people they met, they knew it's affecting not only the individuals, but the social fabric. So they take up the situation in their own hands because it matters to them and they cannot stand still while there's a course. And there's one point where the excuses of no resources, no interests are not enough, right? So they decide to do something about it. This is so interesting because I suspect this is a growing movement, the CSO movement. There are more crimes and there's more, you know, police in activity. And so this fills the vacuum in it. It's not only in Latin America, as you say, it's all over the world. But I can't think of a place where it would not be appropriate, given what is happening, what we see happening, to police organizations that are misguided or or inactive. And so to me, this is, may I say, it seems like it's part of our new society. It's not just what Project Expedite just sees and touches. It's much broader than that because the problem is broader than that. Am I right? What are your feelings? Yeah, yeah, absolutely, absolutely. And I feel an increase in the importance of civil society. So civil society has always been important. And most significant changes in history have been achieved from popular social movements pushing politics in a certain direction, right? That then and then the fight is picked up by a politician, a leader, something like that. And then changes happen, right? But now we're seeing a boom of the role of civil society and individuals, I would say that. And with the existence of tools such as social media, the wide availability of training materials online, and the possibility of taking a phone and becoming an activist, an investigator, a journalist, there is an increase in the importance of civil society and also in the impact they can have on reality. So and also in addition, with a sense of frustration of changes taking too long and not happening, being too complicated, I think it's a combination of the feelings of people wanting and pushing for change and the resources available to actually make an impact that before perhaps was more challenging. We don't have enough time to cover this. We probably have to come back, I swear. There's so much here. Now another group of movies that you see on Netflix and Prime, the movies of the police themselves, who go renegade, who decide that they're going to be their own judge and jury and go out and punish people. And I don't think that's completely fabricated. I think that does happen. And so the question, and this is a dark side of it, is whether the CSOs do that too, whether it be an old crime or a crime, as you say, that's happening in real time, perhaps they're motivated, they're same motivations that make them want to join the CSO in the first place to take a look at the information they've gathered and go out and be a judge or jury and and an executioner, so to speak, to people who they find in their capacity as members of the CSO who have done wrong. Does that happen? Well, not on the side of CSOs. I think when you draw the line between CSOs and other type of groups who take justice in their own hands, like I don't know, self-defense group, vigilantes, even rabble groups, I don't know. No, civil society organizations usually work within institutionality and try to supplement their effort, right? So for example, if a case is not being investigated, civil society organizations can go around with a proper training and collect the evidence, interview people, collect witness testimonies, and like prepare a file, right, and then go to the prosecutor and say, okay, here's the investigation, please move forward with this case and then support that work with advocacy, with demonstrations, with media campaigns to trigger action, right? So they are not only on the advocacy side waiting for things to happen through media pressure, perhaps, if we can call them, but they're also doing things that other actors could and perhaps should be doing, but they actually advance. So there's no excuse about, I don't know, the lack of resources, the lack of staff to do things, right? They advance as much as they can to try to get a result. Okay, well, let's have a fact pattern, a hypothetical. Okay, so I'm in one of the CSOs and I find that there's been a crime committed, and it's really notorious crime. It's been in the papers, for example, but the police aren't doing anything. So I go out and I investigate. I investigate the benefit of what Project Expedite Justice has taught me. You've taught me about evidence and the admissibility of evidence and how you obtain witnesses and talk to them and document what they say and all that. And I make a file and I put all this in a file and I deliver it to a police organization that should have been investigating it in the first place, but failed to do so. And I say, look, we did this. This is all kosher. We did this in accordance with the rules of evidence and the proper rules of investigation and so forth. And we're handing you the file. We want you to take it further, prosecute it, turn it over to the prosecutor, turn it over to the judge, whatever. And nothing happens. Nothing happens because it's corruption in my fact pattern. There's a little corruption there and they're not going to do anything. Now, you said that they would go into demonstrate. They would try to embarrass yourself. How do they do that so it works and does it always work? Well, so it doesn't always work because you can only get some so far with this. And in your fact pattern, there's like a deep and rooted corruption. They're basically immune to this type of media pressure, right? That's a reality, but you try to do your best. But it can be successful in different ways. And that's also part of the strategy, right? With the media pressure, many times it works. Many times it works. And there are organizations of the CSOs that not only know the legal part, but the media part. And they're very effective doing Facebook campaigns, sign up letters, conducting interviews, showing videos around, even rallying resources to this. So that works many times. The other alternative is that you also have to be strategic about where you want to take it, right? So many times the local judge is not the authority, you should take it too. So maybe you have to go a level up or you can submit it to other organizations that have like more strength, like, I don't know, the UN or international organizations or human rights spot. It only depends on the case. It depends on the violation. But that is also part of the strategy you have to think about. Not only what do you collect, but where do you want to take it? Because if it's futile to file it before a local prosecutor, you're not going to give your evidence away that easy to a corrupt officer, right? Of the knowledge that CSOs also get from us and that also give to us, right? Because they tell us, no, you might think that your local prosecutor is the good one, but actually it isn't. Let's explore other options, right? This is so interesting. So you have to know who the good judges are and who the bad ones are. And likewise, you have to know who the truthful media is and who it isn't. I mean, I would imagine, look around the world, not every media is independent and free speech, some are not. And that this effort you're describing, the CSO arrangement you're describing, requires at least some honest prosecutors and judges and requires at least some honest media, right? Absolutely. Absolutely. And I go back to the biggest asset they give you and is that they know who's who in their town, in their country, and so on, right? So we work internationally, a project that's very justice. And as much as I'm a disciplined professional and I read and I try to get familiar with the context, there are things that you cannot know unless you're living on the ground, knowing who's who, right? And the same way you and I know in our neighborhoods, in our cities, which are the good places to eat, which are the places to avoid, they also know it, and in public administration as well. So they are the ones who are going to tell you, no, this thing that you thought was a good one is not, let's avoid this, let's do that. That if we went into it by ourselves as project experts, by justice, we would probably make lots of mistakes, because we perhaps naively think that the local judge is a good one, that we should go for the domestic avenue first. And then, you know, that they tell you know, this is compromise, don't do that. Let's try to do another way. So I would say there's no way of doing a good pace without local organizations, because you just don't know where you're standing. It's a danger. It's a danger to somebody in CSO and a CSO who is investigating, let's say, a sensitive case involving people who have the ability to attack. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. And many times when you hear about human rights defenders being killed, being targeted around the world, well, there's people investigating human rights violations, investigating international crimes, investigating corruption in their communities. There are also human rights defenders in the broad sense. So when we're speaking about and you listen about violations against human rights defenders, these people are included and they're the most at danger because they are the ones picking a fight directly with very powerful and dangerous people committing these crimes with a usually financial or economic interest behind and that control a lot of institutions and even security forces in their place. So it's a dangerous job. And that is part of the caution that you have to take. You have to try to do it in a safe way, but they're exposed to threats all the time. Well, we have plenty of threats in this country all the time, I think right now, if you follow the newspapers. So what do you tell them? Keep it secret, do not reveal your identity. You have to be an investigator without letting people know. So I think the first thing is every investigation has to prioritize security. That's the first thing. Just as important, but just being another figure in the numbers of killed human rights defenders of arbitrarily detained human rights defenders is not going to do any better to improve the situation. So that's the first thing and that's part of the challenges many times of working in the situations, right? Because these are people that come from the communities that are deeply about the situation. Many times, you're willing to take risks that you would not take if you were an outsider, right? So it's very important to work with them and tell them, okay, I need you safe. I need you alive. First, because you're valuable as a person, you're valuable to this community. And second, because you're valuable to the case, you're no good to the case if you're dead. And also a very open and high profile also endangers the witnesses and so on. So this type of investigations have to be done safely, taking precautions, hearing about security and so on. It's not just about the outcome, but about the way in which you do it to guarantee that you are not creating more risk and more harm that has already been inflicted, right? What about the public in general, especially the ones who are on social media, who are following the action? Well, it's part of the work and also depends on the organization, right? Because it's always a balance between how visible do you want to be or not to achieve your purposes, right? So we've been saying that security is a concern. So you want to keep a low profile to be secure, but also if you have a very, very low profile, no one knows who you are, then if something happens to you, no one will notice, right? That's one thing that could happen. On the other side, also having a high profile makes you harder to target because the government or the rabble groups or whoever is committing those crimes are going to pay some consequences if something happens to you. So that's one thing and social media becomes interesting. Also as a tool of protection in this way. And the second thing is that also people care about this as well. So if there's a campaign about something, if there's a signup letter, people start caring about it, it brings importance to the issue. It goes beyond the CSO into the public. So occasionally they do get this and they can even get financial support because they do fundraising and crowd funding and all that for different types of things. So those are also elements that happen in the situations, but there's a lot. There's a lot of CSOs worldwide. The media work is very hard and it requires a lot of effort to keep it feted too. So you always have to be creating content and so on. So it takes a toll, but the ones who are good at it get a lot of positive resources from that, including visibility, security, financial resources and so on. And it's part of the work nowadays. Are there forces that are organized to try to confuse and distract the conversation of the CSOs? In other words, we have that in this country, obviously, and Vladimir Putin is an expert at it in Europe and this country. People who try to distract and confuse the message, who try to divide the group, so to speak, so that it's not functional. Is there any organized force that tries to do this in the CSOs you're aware of? So not an organization that you can pinpoint, but you can pinpoint governments that do not like them at all and that target them as such and that, as I was mentioning, that associate them to illegality, rebel groups, spread fake news and so on. And that's the sign of an authoritarian government. When they start taking a fight with civil society organizations, with human rights organizations and twisting the message of what they're doing and starting to link them to illegal activities, that's something that should be suspicious. So that's one thing. And then on the other side, you have illegal groups, criminal groups that do not like the work they're doing and they also target them to do that. And the third possibility is that CSOs are very flexible. Most of them are solidly based, good organizations trying to do a good job for their communities, but there can be civil societies created for any purpose, even controlled by governments and so on to push some interests. And that also happens. And it's the dark side of CSOs that because they're so flexible and they're community based, well, a community can believe whatever it wants to believe. And I think that is something we're also seeing in politics, something that we're also seeing in criminal investigations and so on that they use the figure of the CSO to get the prestige of the transparent human rights carrying organization to spread messages or actually do criminal activities. And that is something that, well, that is a reality and also takes a hit on the rest of the CSOs, right? Well, how can you tell which one who's a good guys are? How can the community tell? Well, it's hard because there are a lot as I tell you. So if you and I come together today and decide that we want to create a CSO parent about whatever we can do it. So I think you have to start, if you care about something, you have to do your research over the internet, see what they have done, who they have worked with, if they have results, what's their history and so on, just be diligent about knowing who they are. Of course, it's a lot, it's a lot to track and you cannot keep an eye on all of them, right? But if you care about one, if one picks your interest, it's just go online and try to do a bit of research to see who they are and so on, and see if they're worth supporting. And if not, there are a lot of other organizations doing the similar work that are good and serious, but it's very hard because they're flexible and they can happen anywhere, right? So it's not like you have a 10 to 15 organizations, at least there are thousands of them around the world doing a lot of things and being used for a lot of purposes, right? So it's a challenge. Well, if I ask you, I come in off the street one day and I ask you, Nicholas, can you help me find the good ones? And can you help me ignore the bad ones? Can you help me with that? Well, I would. I would. I have the ones I care about, but the first thing is start with the issue you care about, right? Not start with the organization, find an issue you care about, and then start looking for that one. And that's an easier way to find them. And the track of effort and good work and results, I think is the best way to find it, because otherwise it's untraceable. You cannot start with the organization as such unless you find one specific one and you research that one, but just scouting for CSOs is a challenging. It's a challenging job. Maybe start with a problem you care about and then find who's working on it. It's a better way to approach the issue. Yeah, I think, you know, this is really parallel to the whole social media thing in this country and probably the lessons you're talking about for CSOs globally apply to social media in this country just as well. You know, a few weeks ago, we had a remarkable show also here on transitional justice with a fellow in Ukraine, live in Ukraine, Koval was his name. And I don't know if you've met him or compared notes with him, but he was talking about how if you're chasing work criminals, you have to keep a database. You have to make a list and you have to be able to find them and know their names and know their, you know, their fake names and all that. You have to see what they're involved. You have to be able to check their communications with other such members of criminal war crimes groups. And I wonder, this really occurs to me after talking with you, if the CSOs compare notes, whether they make lists like that, figure out who's who and whether one will share that information with another, I mean, safely, safely so it doesn't get fallen to the wrong hand, so to speak. But it's been useful in Ukraine for the Ukraine government and for, you know, the people who try to find work or criminals there and actually prosecute them. You got to find them first. So what about CSOs? I mean, do they have that kind of technology? Do they have, you know, information technology that would help them make lists and then find people and then share lists? Right. So you could have them in two ways. Those lists exist. The first one is if they achieve certain degree of organization of institutionality, they can become registered as charities, nonprofits, NGOs and so on. So that's one way of checking if they're there. Just look at the registries. The other thing is that they're usually working coalitions and this is trust-based. They know each other, right? So they can point you in the right direction of who's who. So there are lists based on this coalition, right? So I don't know. The organization, there's a coalition of organizations that work on Indigenous people's rights and then you see who are the members and you see, okay, this 20 organizations are the ones. I know one that is trustworthy because I've known them for whatever reason. I like them. I saw them in the movie. I saw a documentary, something like that. And I see they work with these other 19 organizations. So that's a way of knowing and navigating who are the good ones, right? Be on the formal aspect because that is something that should be considered from these organizations. They're very informal and it's good that they are because they overcome formal barriers from bureaucracy and so on. But a way to know which ones are good is maybe referring to just networks where you probably know one of the organizations or the donor supporting them or something like that. So that way you can see that they are serious and they mean business, right? Yeah, all very important. Well, you know, I asked you before whether the whole notion of SEO is a growing phenomenon in the world and we know that it is. But the question is, how successful is it? How successful is it for you, for the investigations that you conduct or supervise or consult about with CSOs? And how successful will it be in the future? And what has to happen globally to make it more successful as a counterbalance, if you will, to autocracy? Right, so they're very successful. I would say actually a thing, they're an element necessary for success, right? Because of the ground knowledge they have that I wouldn't, right? I cannot arrive to any country in Africa, show my face around and start asking questions, asking for evidence, picking up stuff from the ground. I cannot do that. I didn't know it. No one's going to trust me. It's going to be suspicious and they didn't know the place, right? So that's the first thing. The other thing is that they have access to places that we don't. We don't and they have real-time access. So an attack occurs, some violation is happening, they are already there. So if they have knowledge, they can deploy right away and do the thing in a responsible way if they have the proper training, that is the objective, right? And also they know better what's going on. So in that sense, they're very successful and they actually help you overcome challenges that big organizations, big NGOs, international NGOs cannot surpass on their own because there are some obstacles that it doesn't matter how big or respected you are, you cannot surpass, right? You cannot go into a conflict zone if you're going to raise attention. Yeah, if you're going to bring attention to yourself. Well, if you're a local, you can go around in a better way for example. So that's a thing. What's the challenge for them? Coordination, as I told you, there are many and there are many working on the same thing so they can overlap and resources. These are processes that require high level of sophistication, of training, of logistics to be able to collect some forms of evidence going from witness testimonies that you need to have a place to sit down in a safe way, to listen to someone, to offer refreshments, to take the time to do it, to the collection of physical evidence that require a whole lot of technical expertise so you're not going to contaminate and know the shell of a bullet with your fingerprints or something like that, you know? So resources are a challenge and as these are small local organizations, there's a funding challenge for them, right? They need to get the resources and as there are so many and the funding is so limited that jeopardizes the level of success and that third element is knowledge. You can have the best intentions but if you're not properly trained and you don't have the proper knowledge, you're not going to be able to serve the mission you want to serve in the proper way and actually you can be harming your own mission and the other people's mission that are working the same thing because you can be affecting witnesses, believe their covers, things like that. So that's the challenge for success of these organizations. You know, it strikes me, you said at the outset that these CSOs can do all kinds of things. I mean, it's not limited to criminal investigation or even criminal investigation of a certain kind of crime. It could be all kinds of social community efforts to make things better. Well, do they ever get into politics? Do they ever run a candidate, for example? Do they ever try to influence the outcome of an election? They do. They do actually. They do because they want to push change and they have community coordination, right? And there comes a point where besides politics, they think they need to make a difference and they do not need the intermediary. And it happens. Actually, Colombia is a very good example at the moment. Our vice president used to be a social leader from a CSO, right? She comes from a very marginalized part of the country, from a very humble social extraction, and she became a social leader and an environmental leader for many, many years through community coordination and her group coordination. She even fought mining corporations, paramilitary groups to prevent them from accessing some resources in their communities and so on. And at some point, she decided, okay, I've done, I've had impact at the local level in the immediate actions I can take. But I think now we need to take our ideas to the next level to make structural change, you know? And she ran for president. She was a primary candidate and she got the second place in the primary elections of her party. Well, of the party that, so she was not part of a party. Well, the coalition of parties and her movement was one of those parties in the group. And she gained so much attention and so much prestige that the president who, well, the current president who maybe would have chosen another vice presidential candidate more aligned with political considerations decided to go for her because the social pressure was so high and she got so many votes that he had to choose her. Otherwise, he would have lost the election because he would have lost the votes that she brought in. So at some point, they take political action because they want to and they're political actors or because they think it's the way of achieving their social agendas. Yeah. Well, that would depend on the country. The country is too far over. It may not be possible. But one thing is true. Go ahead. No, exactly. And that was the case in Colombia. You know, before, I didn't know the peace agreement and many other things that happened with politics in the recent years. This wouldn't have would not have been a possibility, right? And now it is. Yeah. Now it is. Well, as I was saying before, it sounds like the beginning of a new model or at least the expansion is the beginning of a new model. And it may be worldwide. It may be something that will emerge, can emerge to deal with autocracy. And that's very encouraging. And so it may be a kind of, may I use this term? See if you think this term is adequate. A new democracy. A new element in finding democracy. It's not the same as the old democracy. It's a new democracy. What do you think, Nicholas? Absolutely. Absolutely. I agree. I agree. And I think worldwide, there's a frustration, general frustration with the people who have held power traditionally, right? Regardless of their views, regardless of their outcomes, their succession from people feeling unrepresented by traditional parties, by traditional politicians. So CSOs and civil society as a whole, I think, is a way to challenge this traditional power structures and take over them. Even we saw it here in this election in Colombia. But I think it's something that is happening worldwide. Every time the communities are organizing themselves and noticing that they don't need the politicians to push for change. So if I'm an ordinary person, say I just graduated from school and I wake up one morning and I decide I want to watch Transitional Justice on Think Tech Hawaii. And I like the notion of a CSO and I want to join the CSO, become associated. How do I do that? Well, you can go online again, look for a problem you care about, right? I think mission and having your mission clear is essential for the work of CSO, some for people who care about CSO. So know what you want to work on. And look if there's something locally working on that issue, right? And if it is just reach out. If it's not, maybe it's your call to do it. So just bring a couple of friends together, start talking to people, start doing things. And once you notice, maybe you have some sort of coordination and then you will have a conversation about how formal and structured you want to make it. But the first thing is, I think that the nice thing and the admirable thing of CSOs is that this is people caring about people that come together to do something about the reality that they want to change. And that way it's a very simple, but also fruitful way of addressing social issues without all the complications that come from organizational issues, government issues, bureaucracy, and so on. That's something you will face longer later down the road if things go right. Yeah, the general idea would be, if you want to seek change, then become at least to some extent an activist. Activism will hopefully save the world. Probably, probably. Well, thank you, Nichols. It's been a great discussion. Really opened my eyes. I really appreciate it coming on and I want to do this again. So stay tuned. Of course, always a pleasure. Aloha.