 STINK TECH AWAY, CIVIL ENGAGEMENT LIVES HERE. Oi, you're really in store for this one. Don't abuse me. This is Stink Tech. It's at 4 p.m. on a given Friday. Cynthia Thies with us. She's an international prosecutor, but at the moment she's the executive director of a nonprofit, I think, operating in Kona called Project Expedite Justice. Welcome to the show, Cynthia. I can hardly wait for our discussion. Thank you, Jay. Okay, so let's start with your experience at the Hague. The Hague criminal, what is it? Hague International Criminal Court. That's right. The International Criminal Court located in the Hague. Very exotic. They make movies about things like that. That's right. And you were sitting there in Kona one day and somehow you connected with them and you became a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court in the Hague, which is in Holland, somewhere. Yes. In the Netherlands. That's right. It's about 50 minutes outside of Amsterdam. That's a good city. Yes. It is a good city. So how did you do that? So my story is that I'm a regular line prosecutor. I was a deputy prosecutor in Kona-Hoye with the County of Hoye and I was hitting my 10-year mark. And I knew I really loved international travel and I loved prosecution. But I started to question the whole theory about, well, for prosecuting one murderer, for one victim, how productive would this be over the course of my life? And one of my oldest friends told me, you need to look at the tribunals. And so on my own free time, this was not part of my repertoire in law school. You didn't study criminal things in law school. I didn't study international criminal law because I went to school before the Rwandan genocide happened. So that really became the big push and the explosion. How did it woke you up to international issues? Is that it? Well, it woke the law up. It didn't wake me up. I was still in law school and finishing and actually in civil practice at that time with Carol. Yeah, yeah. Carol Manly. Hi, Carol. Hi, Carol. Exactly. So, but the body of law really began to develop in 1994 after the Rwandan genocide happened and after they set up that tribunal. So I started to just look online at the international criminal court and the various international tribunals that were out there, such as Cambodia, the court for the former Yugoslavia. And I came across the ICC, the International Criminal Court. And what really struck me about that particular court was that it really, truly was international. We work in a prosecutor's office with lawyers from, it was like 60 countries at the time I started in 2007. But we have to know how you got there. How I got there is I did in the— Yeah, so you're sitting in Kona. Yes. And you studied this on the net. You looked at— I read transcripts between my hearing. I read transcripts. Oh, you really got involved, you know. Yes. You know, watch television, other people read transcripts? Well, when you're sitting in a court and waiting for your case— That's when you do it. Yeah. I was reading transcripts and sort of teaching myself about how the court operated and what pleading there really meant. Okay. And it really made it very accessible. And then there came a moment when you filed an application from right here in Hawaii to the Hague. That's right. That's right. I applied online. Yeah. No prompting. There's no implementation of a network. And I just applied. It's straight online. And of course, like many things that happen in our lives, you forget about it, and then someone calls you. And it reminds you. Exactly. And you do a bunch of precursor tests. You do a written exam on basics in French. In English, I—you say— No. You do your written exam in English. Okay. You take a very preliminary French test just to say hello. Okay. And then they create what they call a short list. And that's what they use to fly people out, where you plead in person, you meet the prosecutor. And that's actually, I think, what made my position possible. Well, if your interview with them is anything like your interview with me, I can see exactly how that happened. That's very kind of you. But in all seriousness, the prosecutor asked me one thing, which I have—that stayed with me my whole life. And he said, you're from Hawaii. It's a beautiful place. And Luis Moreno Acampo is a larger-than-life figure. He said, why on earth do you want to move here? It's raining, rain is pelting, horrible weather. And I really wanted to do the work. The focus of the work at the court are mass atrocities defined as crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. So the subject matter is very rich. In the states, they give you a case as a prosecutor consisting of one individual. At the court, you work on a country, and that's your case. So it was very different going from the disorganized crime, as I call it, that one-season cona, to a militia leader, to a head of state, to a former vice president. It's really a very different equation. Oh, sure. I can just see. If I knew you then, I would call you and say, Cynthia, what did you do today? I prosecuted war crimes and war criminals in bulk. Yes. Okay. I can't say I've ever done anything like that. But you do, Ed. How was it, though? What kind of experience did you have over there? That's very rich. I have to say that I've never worked harder in my life. It's very complicated in a way that, you know, in the U.S. as a prosecutor, there's minimal oversight. You try your case as you see fit. And in the international sphere, there's a diplomacy aspect, because we need cooperation from states to conduct investigations. And we need—so there's a diplomatic element that really doesn't exist. Investigations. Do you go into the country where this crime took place and personally investigate Cynthia? Yes. Do you have a bodyguard? No. There's a security unit that exists. And of course, there's a standard witness protection regime that is in place. And oftentimes, Jay, it's not simply possible to go and visit the scene for those same reasons. You might choose to operate in a country that's within the region, let's say. And so your witnesses aren't exposed and the investigation can be done safely. Now, the interesting question that has come up in many of my cases is, where does the trial occur? The court is seated in the Hague, so that's the— It's a very old building, right? Brand new, actually. Brand new? Yes, they have got a new building. OK. With a new budget. Maybe it has a budget. Yes. So the question is always, do we have the trial in the Hague, or do we have it in situ in the country? And so that was always a very interesting issue. You mean it could be one or the other? That's right. And how do you protect people? How do you protect your transcripts? How do you protect your equipment? And all of these logistical things that we simply have the luxury of not thinking about here in Hawaii. So let me go back a little bit. The investigation is everything. And just a few days ago, we had Thay Un-Bek, who is a professor at UH Law School, specializes in human rights and more specifically in enforced disappearance. And he talked about—and he works for the UN, he works for Human Rights, specifically a work group about enforced disappearance, and they investigate. He goes to Europe and they investigate these cases. And you were saying before the show that the quality of the investigation is so important, you've got to follow certain protocols. What are those protocols? What's a good investigation? What's a bad one? Well, I'll give you a really simple concept. So in the U.S., we talk a lot, at least in criminal cases, about chain of custody and about the authenticity, basically, of our evidence. You would agree, correct? Yeah. So that's something that a documenter that works in the field wouldn't necessarily know. If you're investigating a crime, sure, they'll take down a statement. We like it organized in a certain manner. We also like to put—make sure that the witnesses' psychosocial care is attended to before we speak to them, that they are fit for purpose, as we say. And then we extract the information. We also follow a very strict regime of chain of custody for anything that we might gather. That's a very simple example of a form, essentially, that is common in our legal systems, but perhaps not so common to an average person who is trying to document human rights in a very remote area that might not have paper, that might not have pens, let alone a computer or other luxuries, I would say. But there are similarities, too. This sounds like—with changes in protocols and best practices and all that, it sounds like a prosecution that might take place anywhere. Yes. You have evidence. Yes. You have a defendant. Does the defendant in the criminal court—the International Criminal Court—have the right to remain silent? Yes. Does he have the right to get warnings before he speaks to you? Yes. Does his issues come up the way they do in the U.S.? Yes. It's called an Article 52 warning, actually, 55-2. And it is very similar to what we would define as Miranda rights here. You have the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to be informed of what you're accused of before you elect to make a statement. So you go into the courtroom, whether the courtroom is in some country in Africa or— Yes. So far, they've never held a trial outside of the Hague, but my point is that the request is oftentimes made. And the question arises as to whether or not it makes the court more accessible to the populations that have suffered. They want to see justice. They want to see it delivered. And sometimes—or the argument has been made—that having it regionally would improve access. Improve risk, also. Yes, exactly. That's why we're always like, no, no, no, we must have the security of the building. What about publicity? What about, you know, the image of the court and the court's proceedings and results to the people in the country in Africa? Do they hear about it? Yes. An outreach program that's attached to the graphé or the registrar, as we would think about them, the court clerk's office here in Hawaii, that is responsible for conducting outreach in those particular communities. And I can say also that the prosecutor's office also has their own media branch, separate, of course, from our legal work, where the prosecutor, Madame Ben-Suda, goes out and speaks to the population— Ah, good. —or representatives. Good. What's the percentage of cases—well, give us some numbers. How many cases does the International Criminal Court, you know, handle in a given year? And what's the percentage of convictions? Well, that's a pretty interesting question. I can say over the lifetime of the court that it was established in July of 2002. Since then, I think approximately 35 indictments, if I'm not mistaken, have been issued. Obviously, indictments— But that does not meet—yes. Which is quite different from ours here. It's more of a speaking indictment, sort of similar to a pre-trial brief, longer in nature than what we are used to, I think, in most U.S. jurisdictions. But at any rate, the indictment's issue, the question becomes, how do you use your diplomacy efforts to apprehend the suspect? Sure. You've got extradition issues, no? Exactly. Don't you need his or her body? Don't you need to have him in custody? Exactly. So, in one of my first cases involving a suspect, his name was Jean-Pierre Bimba. He was committed crimes in the Central African Republic, but was located in Brussels. And lucky for us, the Belgian authorities are extremely cooperative and organized and he was apprehendable. The same does not hold true for perhaps heads of state that have fly here and there destination hosts, if you can call them, you know, choose not. He'll protect them, yeah. Exactly. So, it really is dependent, unlike I think our system here, it really is dependent on cooperation. There's simply no international police force, if you want to call it that. Interpol, no? Well, that's one extraneous arm, or external arm, if you want to call it that. But the court itself does not have a police force. The court works for the United Nations? It's separate. Separate. Not controlled or funded by the United Nations? No. It's funded by the state's parties, i.e. the countries who support the court and ratified it in their home jurisdictions and signed the multilateral treaty, which is called the Rome Statute, because it was negotiated in Rome. OK, I hope you guys are making notes of this, because there's going to be an exam for any Rome Statute. So, you learned stuff you would never have learned in Kona. You learned about things like Ai Weiwei and human flow. You learned about the dark side of our planet. What kinds of cases did you handle were on your desk during the seven years you were there? My first case, as I mentioned, involved a gentleman by the name of Jean Pierre Bimba, and it involved crimes where he helped a president of the Central African Republic who was being overthrown. So the president calls upon Mr. Bimba for assistance, and he had his own militia, and they went to the Central African Republic, and allegedly, and I say that allegedly, quelled the population. What that means in layman's terms is, essentially, how do you quell a population? Well, you might take a mayor of a village out and sodomize them in front of everyone. You might, you know, commit—your soldiers might commit multiple acts of rape. That's your instruction. Your instruction, your order, your failure to punish, depending on if you're looking at command responsibility. But I must say that I worked on the pre-child part of the case and constructing it, sort of centralizing the topic as rape as a weapon of war, if you will. It did go to trial, and I believe several months ago that the conviction, in the case in chief, was overturned. Oh, no! It was overturned. Why, an appellate court somewhere. Yes. So there's an appellate court in the International Criminal Court. There is. That's right. And that's—it's also in the Hague. Yes. However, there was a case that followed that afterwards, and it was called an Article 70 case, or what we commonly refer to in the U.S. as an obstruction of justice. That can mean you tamper— We have that in the U.S. Yeah, a bit of witness tampering. I can cite you examples, but not here, not now. I'm sure you can. So, Mr. Bimba's Article 70, his tampering case, remains solid. It is pending appeal. Everything is appealed. Everything. Oh, this happens regularly in cases in the Hague. Yes. Every issue is possibly appealed, is appealed. It's very paper-dense, as I would say. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And the defense is well-funded, usually, by governments and the like. Well, they are funded by either—just like it is here. We have an office that provides for representation. Sometimes you have inadequate resources, so that is an option that's available. They are always provided with the defense, or they can bring in their own—at their own expense, of course, just like it is here. So it goes to the appellate court on somewhat evidentiary issue, or what happened in the case you were talking about? What was the point of reversal? The point of reversal was actually that they found the weight of the evidence as assessed by the trial bench. We plead to three judges. Wow, the weight of the evidence. Yeah, that they disagreed with that. That's a very simple way of putting it, but that's basically what it would sound to you. Wow, that sounds very European to me. The weight of the evidence, it doesn't usually happen in the U.S. No. You allow the trier effect to have his day— That's right. —her day. That's right. And we leave it to the trier effect in the U.S. to assess the credibility of the witness, the manner in which they speak, the delivery, if you will, of the information. Now, had he been convicted? Well, he was convicted. Oh, thank you. But they were reversed. Had the conviction stuck? Okay. Now, he had been apprehended, right, by the European authorities? By the Belgian authorities. By the Belgian authorities. And he appealed there? Presumably he was in jail rather than on a bail bond arrest. That's right. He was in Schreveningen. That's our jail. Schreveningen. Schreveningen, Schreveningen, which is what, the Hague's jail? It's actually—you're right. I love this. You have a jail. It's a Dutch jail. A Dutch jail. That rents space to the tribunals, be it the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, be it the International Criminal Court, and their house there for their pre-trial detention. Had his conviction stuck, this guy, this first case you talked about, what would have happened? And he had been awarded a term of imprisonment. Of 18 years, I believe. 18 years. Oh, that's the way it came out, yeah. Where would he have been imprisoned? Well, that's a really interesting question, because it's generally outsourced. So what happens, a lot of times, is people will negotiate for—I wish to serve my sentence in ex-country—near the country club. Yeah. Whoever has the best conditions. So there are particular destinations that people will pick. As a prosecution—or as a member of the prosecution team, we don't participate in that. But it is a very interesting question that I'm oftentimes asked. I would also like to add that the court does not adhere to a death penalty. We have a maximum cap, despite the horrific nature of the crimes, of 30 years. Well, in 30 years, you usually figure somebody gets straight somehow. But you've had—you've seen cases that are really horrendous, horrific war crimes, kinds of mass murder cases. War crimes against humanity, they're basically the same. And that's where they would go. They would go to that court, yeah. Yes. They would go under certain circumstances. The jurisdiction of the court is largely temporal, it's personal, and it's largely dictated by the countries who ratified the Rome Statute, ratified it in their home jurisdiction. So a common question that I'm asked is, well, what about Syria? And the simple fact is that the court does not have jurisdiction over Syria. Because— Because the UN secured—because it's not a state party, they did not sign the treaty. And the only door that's available to them is the UN Security Council. And if you reflect on the composition— It's fairly political, isn't it? Exactly. Yeah. And divided interests, I might add. Yeah. A lot of— So you're going to get some people who push for a referral and others that don't. Historically, the UN Security Council referred the case of Sudan's president, Al-Bashir, and referred the case—you might remember Qaddafi from Libya. How could I forget? Exactly. Exactly. So they referred those two cases—unfortunately, Mr. Qaddafi— Maqé. Exactly. He got a different sort of punishment, if you will, before the court really was seized of jurisdiction. So you think the court's going to get more powerful in the years to come? Will it have greater resonance and respect around the world, or is it always under attack on sovereignty, jurisdiction, and credibility? I'd like to think that the court will survive. It's a new marker. It's only been in existence since 2002. The second thing is that the court—this is the first time in humanity, which is the whole reason I'm so engaged in this topic—that courts have really—that there's a home for multiple states. So when an issue does arise, the court could react. So over time, we might find that the court gathers more cases, more interests, by the world community. That's right. They've recently been seized of the Rohingya issue through jurisdiction in Bangladesh. Because the Rohingya minority population would flee to Bangladesh. So the court will be starting—I believe that investigation is— So if I'm a complaining party and I feel that there have been crimes against humanity, crimes that fall within the purview of the Hague International Criminal Court, and these crimes took place in the United States—that's my position on things—and involved the United States government hypothetically. And I came to the Hague and I said, I want to file a complaint. I want this to be heard in the Hague International Criminal Court. What would happen? For crimes that occurred within the U.S. territory? Yes. Nothing. Congress—well, I should say that there is what was commonly referred to as the Anti-Hague Act. Anti-Hague? Yes. Where we—the staff members of the International Criminal Court are not allowed to conduct investigations on U.S. soil and are not allowed to participate, which, I don't know, trickles down to there are not being very many Americans that work at the court, because we're not a state party. We don't pay the rent, so to speak. I'm glad you—I'm glad you got into that position and glad you had your seven years. It's something biblical about seven years. And I hope—truly hope—that you will either come back and talk to us some more about it, or that you will write it up in some way, if you haven't already, so we can all, you know, have that experience through your eyes. Can you do that, Cynthia? Sure, of course. All right. We can take a break. When we come back, we're going to talk about life in the project Expedited Justice in Kona, Hawaii. Same person. We'll be right back. Aloha. I'm Wendy Lowe, and I'm coming to you every other Tuesday at 2 o'clock live from Think Tech, Hawaii, and on our show, we talk about taking your health back. And what does that mean? It means mind, body, and soul. Anything you can do that makes your body healthier and happier is what we're going to be talking about, whether it's spiritual health, mental health, fascia health, beautiful smile health, whatever it means, let's take healthy back. Aloha. Aloha. I want to invite all of you to talk story with John Wahee every other Monday here at Think Tech, Hawaii. And we have special guests like Professor Colin Moore from the University of Hawaii who joins us from time to time to talk about the political happenings in this state. Please join us every other Monday. Aloha. Ah, we are having a smoking good time here today. We are. John Lowe with Cynthia Tai, a lawyer, a prosecutor, a European prosecutor, if you will, for the Hague International Criminal Court, and now back home to Kona yet again. So you come back to Kona and you are now, you are fully aware on human rights and right and wrong, a fully matured, moral person. Everybody has this level of awareness and you do because of your experiences. So you create, and you are the executive director, a project expedited justice. Yes. And we're going to try to find the parallels between chapter one and the Hague and chapter two back in Kona. That's fair. So I will tell you, I reflected a lot about my experience at the International Criminal Court and really how could we do things better? So that more, we could have more contemporary evidence collection by civil society members in each of these areas. Many times they collect things and we just can't use them. So really, my effort is to make the cases stronger, to provide more evidence on our issues. So it's an investigatory organization? It's investigatory, but also what we try to do is we file legal briefs. We do, I'll give you an example. Amicus briefs like that? No. So what we do is we do what we call jurisdictional mapping. So if I'm a particular country, what treaties did I sign? What courts could I possibly go to if a crime were to occur on this territory? So we looked to national, of course, national courts. What do they have available? You're doing this out of Kona. Yes. I get that right? That'll be on the exam too. This is a short exam. Kona, but with consultants just about everywhere, I will say. All right. Yeah. I can't convince everybody to come to Kona. So it's a global effort. It's very much a global effort. And I'm very much the outlier, I have to say, living in Hawaii, but we do run the organization from Kona. Yeah. Well, we do have the internet. Yes. We do have the internet. And it's called Project Expedite Justice. That's right. That's right. So people can look and they can see that. Yes. And they can see what you're doing and what you're covering. Right. So we take very much a victim-centered approach where we do no harm. We're very careful about our victims. And we really try to serve the populations that don't have a voice. So we take a look at the national avenues that might be available. We take a look at the regional mechanisms, which we don't think about so much in the U.S. But the U.S. has not had a statute to bow out either. That's right. They're within your ambit and that's the way it is. So for example, in Africa, we have the AU courts. There's a child court. There's a court for human rights in Benjul, the Gambia. So you might file, you might choose to file your petitions there or your communications. So you know, are you going to file it or are you going to just advise or are you going to investigate it and write it up somehow? What we do is we are very driven by capacity-building. So we're trying to leave the population with a better sense of knowledge. And we assist them with the investigation and we write the brief. So we are training side-by-side along with our investigators on the ground, who don't many times are often deprived of the opportunity to go to school or to have, you know, a law background or to have these luxuries that we oftentimes take for granted here. So this would be in a court in another country. Would it be also in the Hague court? It could be, yes. So we could trigger what we call an Article 15 submission to the International Criminal Court. Just a complaint. It's a request for them to open investigation. Okay. Yeah. And we, what we are in essence saying is we meet your jurisdictional limits. We've got a crime against humanity here. It occurred someplace where there is jurisdiction. And we map it. We might map that out. You're not the only one, are you? What I mean is there are other Project Expedite Justice organizations elsewhere in the world, are there? There they are. But I have to say that it's a very novel and innovative approach. What I think what distinguishes Project Expedite Justice or PEJ is the fact that all of our consultants have worked at a tribunal. So we're all very… Consultants, you make that sound like they're all over the world, are they? They are. Okay. Not Justin Bono. No, no, no. I am the only representative in Kona. So we are looking at different, we approach it as a trial lawyer would. How would this be scrutinized by the defense? How is this going to be looked through from the lens of the law in essence? So interesting because you were prosecuted before, clearly defined as a prosecutor. Both in your first life in Kona and then in the Hague. And now you're actually dealing with the same issues, except that you're not a prosecutor, you're a facilitator of some of them. I'm a facilitator and I also am a, I don't know, a filer, a brief filer, if you will. We have submitted an expert brief. We've submitted communications in the regional bodies that I just spoke about. So how is it going? I mean, are you able to get the information you need through, you know, your resources and collaborators sufficient to go to a court, even in a country where the courts may not be completely above board, and get them to recognize that complaint, get them to act on it? Well, oftentimes, Jay, in these countries, the national efforts might be considered futile and that's actually the legal standard that's applied. So for example, it's just simply not productive to file a complaint, because they might discriminate against all women, for example. And if— Not going to help anybody. Exactly. So that's kind of your jurisdictional hurdle. You plead that. You say that, you know, if I were to file in this national jurisdiction, it would be futile. So then where do you go when that happens? Regional, international. You might also consider, which I think is actually the next set, if you will, or the next set of waves, corporate malfeasance. So you might look at who's funding these—who's making the bombs? Who's making the missiles? Oh. Yeah, it gets very— Why am I thinking of Yemen? Never mind. Exactly. So that's a different—a very creative and innovative way of looking at the business of war. Okay. XYZ Company. Uh-huh. It's an Italian company, and they make bombs, really awful, destructive bombs that are used in Yemen, and they're selling just as much—well, at least a substantial number of bombs to Yemen, as we are selling munitions to Yemen, I mean to Saudi Arabia, and to be used in Yemen. I'm sorry, not to Yemen, but to be used in Yemen. So we know that XYZ Company, Italian Company, has a bank account in Lower Manhattan. Uh-huh. Could you do anything about that? You could probably cut under the Office of Foreign Asset Control. You might be able to say, if you're able to define that it's within U.S. policy interests to sanction a particular company, and more importantly, a company is individuals, so you'd have to name the responsible individuals. You could file a complaint. So you're really not limited. You could go to any jurisdiction in the world. No, and—well, you'd have to have some jurisdiction. In your example—and actually it's a true story—there is an Italian manufacturer that has been—a complaint was lodged against them for corporate malfeasance, essentially, very similar to the facts that you mentioned. So it does happen. And that complaint was filed in the Italian Judicial System. The Italian Judicial System. Okay. Exactly. So you could pick your venue, but you could—you have lots of choices. That's right. Oftentimes, I refer to it as a deck of cards. And I think about, if these are my deck of cards, how would I play my cards? So could I go to a national jurisdiction? Could I go to a regional mechanism? Could I go to an international—the international criminal court? Or should I be looking at the financiers? And I think that's really the contemporary issue that is the next set, if you will, of how we look at the intersection between finance and human rights. This is fabulous, that you can actually get traction on the—actually do something about it. I mean, horrendous things happen in the world these days. They do. In a funny way, it seems like more horrendous things than ever before on a scale. And Query, once you decide that this A, B, C, XYZ manufacturer is doing something that is a crime against nature, however you—crime against humanity—yeah. And you find a court that you think would be appropriate, say, in Italy. Right. What do you do then? You've got to get somebody to lodge that complaint or activate the Italian government. That's right. So we operate largely on a system of partnerships. We never do anything in isolation, just PEJ on its own. We are always seeking the cooperation of a local partner. We're never going to be licensed in Italy or every other venue that might be attractive to us from a jurisdictional standpoint. So we would look for an Italian partner in your factual situation with Yemen. And the partner would be somebody who feels the same way about these human rights issues as we do. Right. So the partner would be licensed to practice in Rome or where the complaint would be lodged in Italy and would act as the focal point, if you will, or the lawyer proper to bring that case. And it's very, very common in international cases. We bring a U.S. element if somebody wanted to lodge something here. We also bring our training and our common law experience. But we are always looking for a partner in it to increase the odds, I would say, to find the best jurisdiction, the best home, to have the best success for a particular fact pattern. How do you find somebody of a like mentality who would take this and who would run with it and who would pursue it through the Italian courts? How do you find that person? It's actually not as hard as one would think. There are federations, if you will, the FIDH is a French-based organization. But with partners all over the world. So you can—it's actually a very small niche area in which we operate, where the partners are really—are known to us. They know us. We know them. And we may enter into a partnership or a MOU to bring forward a particular case. For example, there might be a situation where I say, I will manage all of the witnesses and bring forward all of the witness statements. And you, Italian lawyer, please plead the Italian law. And we'll— And we'll help you. And we'll come together. Exactly. And we'll provide the support. We'll consult with you, all that. Yes. You know, we're out of time, Cynthia, but I got to—I'm going to give you my reaction to things, you know? We talk about these outrageous things happening around the world. We make movies about them. We do a lot of media about them. Well, not enough, in my opinion, but we do some media about them. We try to make the world aware that there are incredibly bad things happening for lots of reasons, involving really bad actors doing terrible things to people. But we actually don't take a lot of action. You distinguish yourself from the rest of humanity because you take action. And for this, I admire you greatly. Thank you, Jay. For me, there's just no other choice. Great. Cynthia Tai, thank you so much. Loha.