 Hello, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for waiting. Welcome to the American Foundation for Equal Rights Conference call. All lines have been placed on Listen Only mode, and the floor will be open for your questions and comments following the presentation. Without further ado, it is my pleasure to turn the floor over to your host, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Mr. Chad Griffin. Mr. Griffin, the floor is yours. Thank you, Erin, and welcome everyone to this call. We're going to cover three subjects and try to get through them quickly, and then move specifically to your questions. I should also note, as we have in-pass, this press conference call is being recorded and will be posted on the AFER site at afer.org as soon as we're able to get the auto recording for those of you who need a detailed transcript and for those who cannot make the call. So this call will be recorded. I just also want to note that since we were all on this call, as I see the RSVP list, I know many of you have been on our calls or with us through trials. Since our last call, there's been yet another national poll, which takes us to six national polls that show support over 50%, showing a majority of Americans supporting gay marriage, and those are all six polls since the launch of this case. And in addition, we've also had obviously the tremendous victory of gay marriage in New York since our last call that I know some on this call who are listening were instrumental in pulling off, and I want to sort of congratulate all who made New York happen. The three subjects that we are going to cover on this call is, number one, Monday's hearing before Chief Judge Ware, which is hearing the motion to release the trial tapes to the public. Secondly, we're going to discuss the California Supreme Court hearing with regards to the certified question on standing that will be a week from Tuesday. Ted Butrus, who is on this call from Gibson Down in Crutcher, will be leading the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs this Monday before Chief Judge Ware. And then before the California Supreme Court, plaintiffs' entire argument will be led by Ted Olson from Gibson Down in Crutcher on behalf of the plaintiffs, and I know you all know and have followed these two and know them well. So I just want to say a few brief words before turning it over to our brilliant legal team. There's a difference between fact and fiction, and I think we all need to focus on that difference as we enter into Monday's hearings, as we all know throughout the trial and since the anti-marriage proponents of Proposition 8 have consistently argued that the two witnesses and those that did not come to trial feared intimidation. And I think it's incredibly important to note and we will be doing a really subsequent to this call that all of you will receive via email and posted on our website facts on each of those witnesses. These are witnesses who are incredibly outspoken public figures. They teach college classes, they get paid to speak, they have done debates around the world on these issues. They have sought incredible publicity as they have published their books, their articles, their newsletters, and have done a whole host of media appearances, both television, print, radio, including interviews by many of those of you on this phone call. So I think you could sum up or perhaps change a bit how they articulate intimidation, and I think what's clear is these are individuals who have sought their entire careers of publicity. The one difference in this trial was that the witnesses were going to be under oath under penalty of perjury and they were to be cross-examined and that was what was unique in this trial. And as many of you know and as many of you heard, David Blankenhorn, who was the star witness, admitted many things including, quote, we would be more emphasized more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before. Ken Miller admitted a host of things. In fact, before Prop 8 Pass, Miller specifically cited his language as an example of, the Prop 8 language as an example of, quote, bypassing checks and balances at the expense of minorities. He added that such measures, quote, might indeed have been motivated by animus. Those are just two highlights. So we will be releasing one-pagers on Mr. Blankenhorn and Mr. Miller that shows all of their public appearances and interviews and books and debates, as well as a host of things that are quite obvious when focused on what exactly the anti-marriage proponents don't want you to hear. They don't want you to hear Mr. Blankenhorn make that admission. They don't want you to hear Ken Miller make the admissions he made. And then just to touch very briefly on the witnesses that did not come to trial, as you know, and as Ted will talk in more detail, they actually were brought into trial by our side, and we brought their videotape depositions into trial where they made a whole host of admissions helping to make the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. And so it's very clear why the anti-marriage proponents of Prop 8 don't want these tapes released, and I will let Ted review the legal arguments on that front. And then we're going to jump to the California Supreme Court, and as I said, Ted Olson will review that. And just from my perspective as it relates to the hearing a week from Tuesday before the California Supreme Court, once we've been heard in that court, the number of judges that have had this case will total 34 judges. 34 judges have touched this case, ruled on this case, whether procedural or at the trial level or at Night Circuit or the Supreme Court or the California Supreme Court, and over 1,000 legal filings. And with Judge Walker's ruling, Prop 8 was rendered unconstitutional and has been hanging by a thread ever since. And the light is finally at the end of the tunnel where California gay and lesbian couples who seek the right to marry will, we believe, very soon have that freedom to marry. The last thing I'm going to mention before I turn it over to our brilliant legal team is some of you have already reported on, but on September 19th, in an effort to make certain that the public knows what happened in this trial, a Broadway show will be premiered on September 19th in New York. In fact, in the theater where the Book of Mormon is currently playing, the play is entitled Eight, and it was written by Academy Award winner Dustin Lance Black. And it's based on the actual words and the trial transcripts from the trial. The stars who will be playing the cast include Anthony Edwards, Morgan Freeman, Cheyenne Jackson, Christine Lottie, Rob Reiner, Marissa Tomey, and Yardley Smith. We'll be making a whole host of other announcements. In the coming weeks, filling out the cast, as well as announcing who will be playing individuals such as Ted Olson. The play is also directed, I should say, by the great director, Joe Montello. So with that, I am going to turn it over to Ted Butchers to discuss our upcoming hearing on Monday, and then Ted, we can just go straight from you to Ted Olson to discuss the California Supreme Court hearing. Thanks Chad, and hello everyone. One of the great traditions we have in our country is that we have open courts and that the public has a First Amendment right to access to judicial records and to court proceedings. That's really what's at stake in the hearing on Monday. And the Supreme Court of the United States, the federal courts around the country have held that that right of access for the public to be able to go into court houses to review records of courts for the press as a surrogate for the public to be able to do the same thing really is core to self-governance and our democracy because it allows the people to see and hear for themselves what's happening in the court rooms where juries and judges are deciding some of the most important issues of the day. This case, we believe, is the quintessential example of the type of case where the public should have maximum access. And we have the best possible judicial record of the trial, the video and audio of exactly what happened in the courtroom. There's nothing secret about the material. It all took place in open courtroom where anyone who could get to the courthouse could get in if there was room. But that of course is a much smaller group than the people around the country who are interested in the case. In addition to exposing the weaknesses in the proponents of Proposition 8 case or lack of case, the public would be able to see the evidence that we, the plaintiffs put on during that case, the testimony of the individuals about the discriminatory effects of laws like Proposition 8, the expert testimony from experts from some of the greatest universities in the world testifying as to why Proposition 8 violates constitution and the consequences of discriminating against gay men and lesbians. And then the people can judge for themselves. Some of these issues obviously go beyond the legal issues because they inform what the public would want to consider in deciding their views about whether gay men and lesbians should have the same right as everyone else when it comes to marriage. And so we are arguing, and we're going to be arguing on Monday, there's absolutely no basis to keep this judicial record secret. It happened in a public courtroom. As Chad pointed out, the arguments about the witnesses being sprayed are completely baseless. The proponents never brought any evidence forward. And of course, the testimony occurred, some of it is posted on the court's website from experts from the proponents. And it was a complete distraction that it was the only argument the proponents could come up with to try to explain why they wanted the trial proceedings to be kept secret once they were videotaped. So we think we have extremely powerful arguments for release of the videotape and are really looking forward to putting that on, putting arguments on on Monday. Thank you. And with that, Ted, I think we'll go to you and then open up to questions. And then if we can limit questions just to reporters only, you can feel free to ask questions about any of these topics. Sorry, we're covering so much in one call. There's just little time between the two hearings. I should also note that Ted just won the American Bar Association's highest honor along with David Boyce for their work on this case and their lifetime of work. And it was obviously something that we were very proud of. So with that, Ted, if you would like to address the California Supreme Court and any of these other subjects. Thank you. And thank you, everyone, for being on this call. I would just add a word or two to what Ted Butres said. The hearing next Monday is whether or not the American public will be able to see with their own eyes and listen with their own ears to the testimony that happened in a trial that affects the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of Californians and millions of Americans and people throughout the world. The proponents of Proposition 8 did not want a trial. They did not want testimony of witnesses under oath. They did not want experts testifying about the damage that's done by discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals. They did not want evidence about the value of marriage and the importance of marriage as a fundamental right in this country. They did not want the public to see the truth. They did not want and they do not want the public to see a trial that took place a year and a half ago. They want to keep that in the dark. They want to influence public opinion about these issues through their advertising, the type of ads that they broadcast during the campaign to pass Proposition 8. They do not want those ads and the statements that they publicized at that time cross-examined. They do not want those ads and the statements that they were making scrutinized and that is what the judge ordered. He ordered a trial to examine these issues. He ordered evidence. He gave them, our opponents, plenty of opportunities, all the opportunity in the world to put on whatever evidence that they wanted. They did not put on much in the way of evidence and there, as Ted Butrus pointed out, their witnesses actually supported the plaintiff's right to overturn Proposition 8. The proponents council said during the trial, we do not need any evidence. We do not need to show what Proposition 8 does or any good reason for Proposition 8. We do not need to show that gay marriage or marriage equality would hurt heterosexual marriage. We do not need to show anything. They do not want the American people to see the evidence that supported the overturning of Proposition 8. They do not want the American public to see the absence of evidence to support Proposition 8 and they do not want the public to see firsthand the arguments, the weakness of the arguments, the nonexistence really of the arguments to support Proposition 8. That is what Ted Butrus is going to be fighting for on Monday, open access to public trials on important constitutional questions. The following Tuesday in the California Supreme Court the day after Labor Day, the California Supreme Court will hear the issue that the federal courts asked the court, the California Supreme Court to address. That is to say, whether proponents of a ballot proposition have any right to represent the state of California on an appeal when a court has determined that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. There is ample authority throughout the United States that individuals who do not have a direct interest in the outcome of a case do not have a right to go into trial and go into court and defend the constitutional issue and so forth. They have to be directly involved and they have to show that they suffered some direct and immediate harm to be present to participate in the litigation. In this case, our opponents could not demonstrate any harm that they suffered as a result of the enactment of Proposition 8. All they can say is they wanted it enacted just like various other people in the state of California and we believe they do not have the right to defend Proposition 8 when the attorney general and the governor of California after the trial and after they heard all of the evidence decided that the trial judge was right and that the decision overturning Proposition 8 should not be appealed. So this issue has to do with whether the proponents have the right to continue on this litigation to attempt to continue to deny Californians' marriage equality even though under the law they don't have any standing to proceed with the litigation. We are glad that we have come to this point in September, immediately after Labor Day, we expect a prompt decision from the California Supreme Court on this issue and I will say that whether or not standing is found to exist for the proponents to continue with this litigation, the proponent, the plaintiffs in this case will win Proposition 8 will be unconstitutional if there is no standing to continue this appeal and if there is standing to continue this appeal, we're confident that the Ninth Circuit will decide that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional just as the district court did about a year ago. So with that, Aaron, if you want to open the floor to questions. Of course, the floor is now open for questions. We ask that participants on the call please reserve the question queue for members of the media only. If you do have a question, please press the number 7 or the letter Q on your telephone keypad. Questions will be taken in the order they are received. If at any point your question has been answered, you may press 7 or Q again to disable your request. If you're using a speakerphone, we ask that while posing your question, you pick up your handset to provide favorable sound quality. Hi, this is Chris Geithner from Metro Weekly. Thanks for holding this call. I was just wondering during the arguments before the Ninth Circuit back in December, Mr. Olsen, you had talked about the fact... Actually, I believe it was David Boyd who was arguing this part about the fact that a decision by the California Supreme Court on whether or not their standing would not necessarily answer the question for the Ninth Circuit about Article 3 standing. I'm wondering if you could just talk about what you expect to happen after the California Supreme Court rules and what options the Ninth Circuit could have in terms of what it would do with that decision as to the certified question. Yes, it is correct, as David Boyd's pointed out, in the Ninth Circuit hearing that ultimately a decision as to whether there is proper standing under Article 3 of the Constitution to bring or defend a case in a federal court that is ultimately a federal question that has to be decided on federal constitutional grounds. Now, what the California Supreme Court can do is to illuminate the rights, the issue of the rights of proponents under California law to represent the state of California under these circumstances. We believe that the California Supreme Court will agree with previous decisions of the court that proponents do not have the right unless the state is present itself to participate in legal proceedings such as this. They can't represent the state of California, the state of California in its Constitution vests all responsibility for litigating on behalf of the state of California in the Attorney General. When the Attorney General has made a decision under the Constitution as to what is in the best interest of the citizens of California, that is what the Attorney General has responsibility to do. She has made that decision and that is no citizens of California can come in and substitute for her in doing that. Now, we don't know, of course, what the California Supreme Court will decide, but any of either event, however it decides this, this will go back to the Ninth Circuit and then the Ninth Circuit will examine whether or not whatever the California Supreme Court decides, there is a federal standing right under Article III that exists here. If they decide that there is standing for any reason, then they will go on and decide whether or not on its merits, Proposition 8 is constitutional or unconstitutional as the District Court decided. Could they ask for any sort of follow-up briefing from the parties depending on what the California Supreme Court rules? It's conceivable that the Ninth Circuit could ask for additional briefing based upon a decision of the California Supreme Court, but I rather doubt it. This issue has been briefed repeatedly in the District Court, again in the Ninth Circuit, again in the California Supreme Court, and we will emphasize in the strongest possible terms that based upon 134 pages of facts and findings and conclusions, it is clear that individuals in California are being denied fundamental equality under the Constitution and access to fundamental rights that are shared by other citizens of the United States, and this unconstitutional harm has gone on far too long. We don't really have time for more briefing while people are suffering constitutional rights on an issue that has been overwhelmingly and thoroughly briefed already. The next question comes from Karen Klein of LA Times. Karen? Hi, thanks. I wanted to ask about Monday's hearing. Since the Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court already delivered a decision on whether those tapes could be public or not, I wondered what the difference is in the arguments that will come forth on Monday, and my other question is whether Judge Walker did have the right to show a clip from those tapes at a lecture. Sure, this is Ted Butcher, so I can address both of those questions. As to the first question, the Supreme Court's ruling on the stay related only to the narrow question of whether it was okay to broadcast the trial as it was unfolding pursuant to a rule that had been announced by the District Court in the Ninth Circuit at the time, and the Supreme Court found that the rulemaking procedure had not been completed, and therefore it was not permissible at that point to broadcast the trial. That's a much different question than we now have. Now we have the actual videotape of the trial, which we used and the judge relied on in connection with the case and the decision, and we played clips of the trial during our closing arguments without objection from the proponents. Now the videotape of the trial are judicial records. It's like a transcript. It's better than a transcript. That triggers the presumptive right to public access to judicial records, which is, as I mentioned at the outset, grounded in the First Amendment, the common law, the traditions of this country, the people have a right to scrutinize the records of the courts that lead to decisions and rulings. That's a completely different issue than we confronted way back at the beginning of the trial. And I should add, too, that was at a time before the record had developed that proponents were making arguments about their experts and how the cameras would affect them and the like. But they then never backed it up with evidence, and ultimately the evidence showed the contrary and refuted the arguments they were making. And so we're in a much different situation. With respect to Judge Walker, Chief Judge Ware has already ruled that with respect to Judge Walker's use of that one clip in a lecture that that issue's over and Judge Ware indicated that Judge Walker was entitled to use to retain copies of the videotapes as part of his judicial papers. And the proponents are still, I think, arguing about that. Our view of that point is that's something for the Chief Judge, Chief Judge Ware, the judicial counsel of the court, and something for the judges to decide about what constitutes the judicial papers of the court. Again, if you do have a question, please press the number seven, or Q, on your telephone keypad. We do have a question on the line from Julie Small of KPCC. Julie? Good morning, gentlemen. I'm wondering if you can just talk about the current restrictions on the use of the Prop 8 trial video for legal purposes. Can you use it? You're using it, I think you mentioned in the earlier arguments that you're actually using it as part of your prep for the appeal. Can you just talk about what restrictions there are for you on the use of that video? Sure. The only restrictions for us are public release. There's a protective order that precludes us from using it in any other context, revealing it to you, for example. We must keep it confidential. We are permitted to use it in our preparation. I've been reviewing it as I've been preparing for Monday's hearing. And again, I was there for the entire trial. I was putting on witnesses. I was there for every minute of the trial. When I go back and then look at the videotape, and we used it when we were preparing our proposed findings and when we were preparing for closings, and we used it in the closing arguments with permission of the court, it's remarkable how much more clarity to the issues and how much it allows you to understand and get what was happening in the trial beyond what you get from just reading a transcript. And so it's been very useful to us. And the court, Chief Judge Ware, rejected the proponents argument at the last hearing when they argued that we should have to turn it back in. We said it's part of the judicial record. It's before the Ninth Circuit as part of the record in the case. And for all of you journalists, as you know, one of the best ways to report on judicial proceedings is to look at the records, including the briefs that exhibits the transcripts in the video, and to say that that part, the most vivid depiction of what happened, has to be field off from public view, really runs counter to every principle of public access that there is. Just a quick follow-up question. So if the motion to release the Prop 8 trial video were to succeed, would you be able to use it in any way in your arguments before the Ninth Circuit? Yes, and I think we could. And in fact, we could ask the Ninth Circuit to allow us to use it if there are further arguments in the Ninth Circuit and in the Supreme Court. And so it's part of the record. We would also be able, you would have access to it. The American people would have access to it. And I think it would serve a great purpose, both in terms of educating the public about the legal issues, the social issues, the powerful evidence we put on, and also in terms of just generally how the judicial system functions. The video is quite good. And it's really, I think, a great body of evidence, both for this particular case or the public to see how the judicial system functions. One thing I forgot to mention, you may have noticed this, Judge Ware asked the parties if there were any objections to videotaping Monday's hearing pursuant to this new pilot program. We said we strongly supported that. And the proponents of Proposition 8 objected, and Judge Ware has now put out a notice saying that it would not be videotaped because of the other side's objections. But the irony to me that they're objecting to videotaping and broadcasting a hearing about whether the public should have a right of access to videotapes of a trial is incredible. I don't know what possible reason, and they really gave none, that they could have to objecting to that other than they want to hide the fact that they want to hide what happened in the trial. Thank you. The next question comes from Karen O'Camm of Frontiers in LA. Again, if you do have a question, please press the number seven. Karen, go ahead. Thank you. Hi, everybody, and thank you for holding the call. I actually want to ask a political question of Chad. I'm sure you're well aware that there is currently signature gathering happening to overturn, to put a referendum on the ballot to overturn the California Fair Education Act, which would talk about LGBT contributions and historical contributions and have that be part of the public school system. I'm wondering if you can speak to how the videotapes from the trial might impact any possible referendum to repeal the California Fair Education Act. On this call, I don't want to go into the details of that initiative because the American Foundation for Equal Rights is specifically focused on Prop 8 and full federal marriage equality. There are a host of organizations in the state of California nationally that are focused obviously on fair and this once again hateful initiative that is being attempted to put before the California voters. I think some could dismiss that as full employment for a certain segment of political consultants in the state as opposed to any sincere effort, but so I'd be happy to talk to you off of this call about that. But I will say generally, just to hit on the last part of your question, just generally, I think the California voters who the anti-marriage, the proponents of Proposition 8 spent over $40 million to talk to the California voters. Those exact same people, the exact same individuals, are the defendant interveners in this case. Why were they okay with a $40 million advertising campaign talking to the American public or to the California voters I should say about Proposition 8 and then they don't want their defense of it known to the California voters and ultimately to the rest of the country and the world. I think we all know, without having to spend any more time on why they don't want that release, but I think you ask an important question on the impact of that. And at the end of the day, a debate on any issue, pushing out the facts and letting both sides have their arguments heard in an unfiltered way I think is what best serves the California voters, the public, and ultimately the American public and the taxpayers who fund our court system. So I think that there is benefit and if I was on the other side and I actually believed in the case that I put on, and I believe that we were going to win this debate ultimately, I can't imagine being able to articulate why I would not want the voters and the public to hear the case that I put on in a court of law. So Karen, obviously you know the side I'm on and I believe that our arguments are clearly the winning arguments, morally, constitutionally, legally, and for a whole host of reasons. Well, the reason I bring it up obviously is because of the Prince's ad that was used in Prop 8 and the whole discussion about quote-unquote what happened to this Massachusetts couple. I mean a number of points that you explicitly, that your legal team explicitly brought out during the Prop 8 trial is being resurrected as if it was truth in this opposition, you know, this effort to try to overturn the FARAC. So that's why I brought it up. It seems to me that, you know, in and of itself it contradicts what they're saying. No, yeah. Well, clearly you're right and obviously it wasn't brought about because of, you know, propositionator gay marriage. It was brought about because of a state legislation. But I think if you look at the history of the LGBT movement and particularly on, you know, the anti-gay side that has always pushed initiatives, you know, there's a long history that was also brought out in trial. You know, it started with keeping gay and lesbian individuals from being school teachers. And then there were attempts across the country to keep, you know, gay and lesbian people from having medical benefits. And then, you know, on and on and on and on. Marriage was the last decade. They seem to now be losing most all of those cases legally and a number of those cases politically with marriage and a number of states in the District of Columbia and most recently in New York. And I think you now see some of those same organizations that have to raise money and have to keep themselves in business and have to consultants that need reasons to go to work every day, turning their attention now to this issue about, you know, accuracy in history and teaching, you know, history in an accurate way. And that's one that they think perhaps, and I guess their polling might show that it's something that, you know, they can make a case to donors that they can win and organize around. And somewhat of a sign, by the way, that they may have turned the corner a little bit on marriage and acknowledging not only defeat in this case, but as you know, a host of other defeat in a number of other cases as well as political defeat. So I think you characterize it right. It is a political question. And it's – there's an interesting historical, you know, narrative there. Thank you. Feel free to call me offline, Karen, to talk more. Thank you. The next question comes from Peter Schrag of California Progress Report. Once again, if you do have a question, please press the number seven. Peter, go ahead. Thanks. I'm going to ask one of those hateful, hypothetical questions. If either – if you were on the other side of this, if you were the anti-gay forces, wouldn't you rather lose the standing issue and have this thing die with Judge Walker and not have it go up and so that they could say, this is just one judge in California and it doesn't apply to anything else? Who should answer this? Well, this is Ted Olson. I'll take a crack at it and Chad and Ted Butrus can add further. If the – if there isn't standing, I don't know what I would do if I was on this side because there are arguments that they've made throughout this case have not made any sense to me. They haven't made any sense to any of the judges that have listened to them. And so I don't know about this, but if the standing – if they do not have standing to conduct this appeal, then the 134-page thoughtful opinion by Judge Walker striking down Proposition 8 in California will be the law and that will change the life of tens of thousands of Californians and marriage equality will exist in California. As Chad mentioned and as everybody knows, the people of New York have changed the law in New York so that there's marriage equality there. We're talking about the two most popular states in the country and a big segment of the United States and this – and Chad also pointed out what the polls are showing. This is inexorable. It is moving in this direction. This is a battle that they are going to lose. They may want to prolong the battle, but they're going to lose them and lose these battles in court and they're losing the battle of public opinion. So I don't know which I'd prefer if I were on their side. I'm so much glad that I'm not on their side. And so are we, my dad. Just one addition to what Ted Elson just articulated there, in addition to our case and you mentioned Chief Trezwalkar's federal decision, there are also a number of other in the last year and a half major federal decisions, whether it's the Don't Ask, Don't Tell decision or more than one Doma ruling. They've lost all of these and then state courts like Iowa. So I don't think we're looking at a single loss on their side. I think we see a pattern of loss on their side. The tide has finally turned in these last two years and they seem to be increasingly on the defensive and losing their state legal battles and their federal legal battles as well as their political battles around marriage. We do have a question on the line from Amanda Beck of Prop 8 on Trial, Amanda. Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for having the call. My name is Amanda Beck. I'm one of the UC Berkeley bloggers and I have a basic question that I'm hoping one of you can speak to for just a few seconds. I write for a general audience and I'm wondering if you can just explain to me so that I can explain to them why the name of the case has been changed from Perry v. Schwarzenegger to Perry v. Brown. Obviously we know this has to do with the governor's change but I'm hoping you can describe it to me so that I can relay it to people who have been asking me. I'll answer this. This is Ted Olson. This automatically occurs when a suit is brought against the governor or another public official. It could be the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It could be against the President of the United States in their official capacity. Then when there's a change in the individual who holds that capacity, the court records automatically change to reflect the person then holding the office. So when Governor Brown took over from Governor Schwarzenegger, the court files would all be changed so that the name of the case is Perry v. Brown now rather than Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Great. Thanks. If you have a question, please press the number 7 or the letter Q on your telephone keypad. Please hold while we wait for the next question. All right. Aaron, if there are no more questions, thanks everyone for attending this call and you know how to reach the AFER team in the AFER offices. And as I said, the documents have sort of summarized a number of facts that were talked about by the three of us on this call. We'll be circulated to those of you who are SVP'd for the call as well as posted on the AFER website. And I know that we will be seeing most of you on Monday and then again on Tuesday in San Francisco at Federal and State Court. If no other questions, thanks everyone for your time and attention to these important issues. Thank you. We'll conclude today's teleconference. You may now disconnect.