 So we have the copy with the changes, I wasn't sure if the clean copy, is that still proofers? Yes. Okay. There. Just wait for the column to get back in. Right, so committee and others are probably looking at draft 8.1 with shading to show the changes from the bill is introduced. Right? All the changes together show that, exactly. All the colors. The gray changes show the ones that have been made between the previous draft and the one right now. But yeah, they've been sort of staggered by color. They looked at all of them together. They show the changes to the bill from the language that was in, the version that was introduced, exactly. Great, and committee, thank you for yesterday. I thought it was very helpful to be able to take the time and really go through section by section and understand where folks are coming from. Okay, and so right now it has Ian Martin, but you were mentioning that the file doesn't come to say a... Yeah, the bill is formally in the committee. Right. To come out, it's going to be assuming that it does, that it would be a committee proposal. So a majority of the committee votes for that amendment, then it would be a committee amendment. The phrase now is a strike off. So that strikes everything that was in the bill is introduced. It starts from scratch in terms of language, which is pretty common. The bills that are in here. But yeah, up until now it has been... The post and I miss one or two of us. Exactly, right. So the post and I understand that that process... The proposed committee amendment, the House floor decides first of all, do they accept the proposal's amendment and then do they accept the bill as amended? And if they vote no on the floor, then we'll go back to voting on the bill. I think so, that's a good question. How does that work? On the amendment. Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah, thank you. Great. So, Sir, walk us through. Thank you. Yeah. So as I mentioned earlier, we've moved from the most recent color is gray. So the changes that are... I'll focus us on the changes that have been made between the previous draft and this one. And they are identified by gray highlighting. So you see for just as an example, nothing to look... In section one, the fall proceed because the highlighting is yellow and blue. Still remaining at the 30-day proposed default proceed, no changes there. So you move on from there to the relief and abuse order section. You see the entirety of section three is struck through. This was the language that created a new criminal offense for a person impeding a public officer. And you see that's the new language was line eight to 13 subsection B there. It had created a new criminal offense for being present at a location where a search and seizure was going on or removal of a firearm pursuant to a relief from abuse order. And if you refuse to obey the instructions of a law enforcement officer to ensure safe removal of firearms or protect safety, that was a new two-year misdemeanor. So the proposal was to create the two-year misdemeanor for a person being in that location and this new draft strikes that provision completely. Good sound testimony. Right, right. Everyone okay to move on from there? So that section is gone. Then you move on to this is section 1103, which is the final relief from abuse order stage, final RFAs. The contents of the order itself are very similar, but you'll see that there are some changes when it gets down to relinquishment. This is the issue that's been discussed. Is the relief from abuse order going to order relinquishment of firearms? And there have been committees gone through several iterations of under what circumstances relinquishment would be ordered. So if you look at subdivision four there, this is if the order does require relinquishment. Because remember, it won't always. It's depending on what sort of evidence has been presented. But if it does, then these provisions have to be included in the order. So room number one there, you'll see that it's sort of a different phrasing of that sentence that we discussed last time I was in here just to make it more clear that the information available to the court is what's got to be in this initial order for relinquishment. It's because there have been some confusion about, well, does available information, does that really give the court enough direction to be clear that you're not asking the court to go outside whatever information it has. It's just whatever information is available to the court at that time. So that's the change made on line 18. Now, you see it's a new language, a partially new language here in Roman numeral two. I'm just going to skip down real quick so you can see that part of it is just moved. The second, actually it was originally in the emergency order only. I'm just going to really quick skip down if you can look up back on the wall if you want to. But if you look down on page ten, lines nine through eleven, in the previous version you looked at the emergency order had to include some information letting the defendant know that third party storage of firearms is not permitted unless the court has made these findings that are in title 20. That's this existing law that governs how firearms are stored when their C's pursuant to an RFA. And there are certain findings the court has to make because ordinarily the firearm could be stored at a law enforcement agency, but a person can get a third person who they know who could safely store the firearms. That is an option but the court has to make these findings about safety. So this is just articulating that providing notice to the defendant that you can do third party storage but the court has to make these findings first. So it's struck here but it's not removed from the bill, it's just removed elsewhere. That's still, you still have that language but slightly modified in the emergency relief on page nine, is that right? I was just going back to that, exactly. I was just pointing out that it struck here but not struck from the bill, just moved elsewhere as you were getting at. So yeah, it modified the language slightly because I think it's really part of the same piece of information that the defendant's getting. It's all related to this existing law in title 20 that sets forth how it is firearms are stored once they get seized and that's already existing and both these issues were related to that. So you see lines 20 through 21 on page six and lines one through two on page seven covers both of these things. So if the order requires relinquishment, again this is about information that has to be provided to the defendant. And that's what the defendant knows is that what are the provisions of title 20 section 2307 regarding where the defendant is permitted to relinquish firearms. In other words, let the defendant know that you have these options. The law enforcement agency, cooperating law enforcement agency can store them. There's a second option that I'm not remembering for some reason but the third option is private storage by a third person and we'll have to make some affirmations to the court that it's going to be safely stored by that person. If they can do that, then you have this third party storage option. So these options have to be provided to the defendant. They have to let them know, hey, because when you think about it, at the time of relinquishment it makes some sense to let the defendant know these are your options for storage. Here's how it could be stored. But, and this is a slight tweet to the language I just pointed out that was struck in one place, moved to here. But to include notice, this is lines one and two, page seven, include notice that third party storage is not permitted unless the court has made the findings required by title 20. I think the point there is, you know, you want to let the defendant know you had these options but make sure the defendant also knows that third party storage requires some court findings before it can go forward. Eric, I have a question. I'm sorry if you've already covered it. Yeah. So at the top of page six, line two, where it says the court order shall, if there is evidence that the defendant possesses, owns, or controls firearms, require the immediate relinquishment. But then there's also the other situation now on line 17 where it says if the order requires relinquishment of firearms. So, will all orders require the relinquishment of firearms? Because it seems implied in line 17 that there are situations in which the orders wouldn't require relinquishment. That's right. If they didn't own firearms. Right. If there is no evidence, in that line three you were just pointing out, if there isn't evidence that the defendant possesses, and those are controlled, then I think the idea is there's no reason to order relinquishments. Okay. Thank you. Sure. So this is another provision of information providing to the defendant during the order if relinquishment is required. Similar, sorry, no changes to the language from the previous draft that requires defendant to relinquish firearms. So this is specific if the order requires relinquishment to actually let the defendant know that you have to turn them over. And as well provide law enforcement with some information about the firearms. This is lines five to 11. Remember, this is talking about the location, production of keys, combination of blocks, et cetera. And there's some new language there saying that so you provide this information unless firearms are turned over without requiring law enforcement access to such locations. I think the idea there is if they turn them over voluntarily essentially. There's no reason for the defendant to also have to produce location information, combination of blocks, that sort of thing. So just really quickly, because that language we didn't have a chance to look at yesterday when we were discussing this, but I worked on that later to try to address, unfortunately Matt, not with us any longer. The concerns that Matt was raising is sought to address the concerns that Matt had. Representative Treber, former representative Treber. That's it. The way it was phrased it sounds. It's a remurder, Mr. Treber. It was the dog. You see another conforming change here. We'd already talked about this issue yesterday. Actually, this is just a couple of places where the word owns hadn't been struck. We missed it on this time around. Remember the idea there is that we're talking about requiring relinquishment of firearms or information about firearms that the defendant has. In some situations it would also be information that somebody else has on behalf of the defendant, but they wouldn't own the firearm on behalf of the defendant, so that's why that word is struck there as well as in a couple of other places which you had already seen yesterday. So that's it for the final order. Now moving on to the emergency order. Remember this is the ex parte order, not even the presence of the defendant, typically. And I think the changes you'll see here are just the same as what we looked at now. I'm aware that just now with respect to the emergency order. Again, this here that you see on lines 9 to 10, again, moving the language around with respect to available information just for clarity to make sure the court's clear. This doesn't mean they have to reach out to try and find other information. This is only about the information that is available to the court at that time. And to make clear that the information includes type number and location of firearms. That was in the final order already, but I think it was just an oversight that it wasn't repeated here. The word number I mean. So Eric, can you say more about, I know we had heard from people about their concern about ex parte. There are times that a judge won't do an ex parte hearing, right? And there are times that they will. Is that only when the law specifies or is it related to safety? I think generally speaking, people have a right to be heard. So the court is inclined to have parties whose interests are being decided by a judge to be represented or at least their prosa. In one way or another, they're allowed to be present. And you have to be constitutionally if your rights are going to be communicated. So there are some exceptions to that. And those are either set out that have been found over time, but typically are in statute. So like this, for example, where there are certain times when a civil commitment proceeding can be ex parte. There are times when property seizures can be ex parte. But usually to conform with due process, you have a right to a hearing within a reasonable time afterward. Courts have kind of varied about how much time is reasonable, but 14 days definitely is at least under the court decision. But it's set out in statute that the hearing will be ex parte, but you have a right to be there and be present since your interests are being affected within a certain amount of time after. But is there sort of a standard of proof that's used for when to use an ex parte? I guess I'm wondering if it's not in statute, and you said sometimes judges will decide, is it this is related to something bad will happen if the defendant were in the room at that particular time they would destroy evidence, they might hurt somebody? I don't know of anything articulated that's sort of a general rule as to when there can be ex parte hearings, but I do think that if you looked at them, yes, you would generally see that there's some kind of immediacy required for some reason, whether you think of the ERPO, for example, as an ex parte provision, immediate treatment, medical treatment sometimes can be ex parte, or this here, RFA, if you look for some sort of connecting thread, it's some time sensitive immediacy. I don't know that that's ever been, it may have been, but I'm not aware of any place that that's set down as the rule, but it does seem common. Thank you. And this law has been on the books quite a while, the RFA. Yeah, quite some time. Right. It seems like people keep raising ex parte, and it just seems like the better I understand it, the more I'm equipped to... Yes, right. We're doing an existing sex first scheme. Yeah. It's been on the books for quite a while. So, you'll see the language on 11 to 14 is exactly the same language that you just looked at in the context of the emergency order. This is the same concept in the, sorry, that we just looked at in the final order. This is the same concept in the emergency order, which is providing defendant information about how firearms that are relinquished are stored, and what the options are for storage, and what the requirements are, particularly with respect to third party storage. Same language as you just saw. Also here, another example of just repeating language that you already looked at in the final order context. This is the point about not requiring information about locks, locations, et cetera, if the defendant has voluntarily turned them over. So, real quick, just back to the question Barbara had. In section 1104, southern section 81, which we don't have in the bill, it says upon finding that there is an immediate danger for abuse. So, there is the immediacy requirement for the last part. Thank you. We already saw this as well. This is the, as I find out, the language about informing the defendant about their storage options was struck here, but moved up above. Another example of striking the word owns from a language about someone else holding firearms on behalf of the defendant. Section four is the new crime. No changes there. The new crime for a person being possession of a firearm whether it's subject to an emergency or a final relief from abuse order. Now we're getting into the service section, which is next, and warrants. Again, no changes in here between what we looked at previously. This is talking about the return of service form, what the contents have to be in the return of service form that was brought back to the court after the order was served. You see there's a spelling correction, line 20, filed, used to be healed. This is more about related to the contents. This is, and seeing the different colors, these weren't changed to the previous draft. They'd been amendments that were made previously. So again, there's a reference. This is in connection with the service of the orders and the return of the service, the return of the return of service to the court. There's some language about law enforcement, officer and agency immunity. It means they can't be sued or prosecuted criminally for acts they take or omissions that are made from a good faith reliance on what the law requires in this sub-chapter. You see that clarification is made on line one, page 16. So it's not just actions that they take under that section of law. It's any sections in the sub-chapter, which all deals with the relief from abuse orders and the related issues. So when the officer relies on those provisions in good faith, then they can't be sued for something they might have done or not done. There's some minor language tweaks in these immunity provisions. This is an enumeration of some of the things that they can't be sued for. It uses the word including. You see on line two, including does not mean limited to. These are some illustrative examples of what constitutes conduct that they can't be subject to law suit for. So some clarifying language there. They can't generally be sued for returning a Caesar or a linkage weapon if the person is not prohibited from owning or possessing under state or federal law. Also clarifying that they're immune from any damage caused while accessing or removing the firearm. So it's not just finding it. It's also removing it, taking it away. Now you see subdivision B there is struck entirely. That's because that actually is repetitive. It just repeats language that already exists in the same firearm storage section that I was mentioning earlier, the one entitled 20. That language is already there. The reason it was there is because it was in the bill as originally introduced before all this new immunity language was added. So once all this new immunity language was added, this is no longer necessary. Previously you'd struck some of these reporting requirements. They're gone. The definition requirements are not new, but they actually are moved in placement. They're moved to the end of this section on it really from abuse orders. It just seems to make more sense to have the terms defined afterward when you're presenting them. So I was wondering, actually, if it made more sense for me earlier in the process or earlier in the bill. And I guess in question, even on your question. Where it was before, you mean? Yeah, if we were to do that, does this have to become graph 9.1 or has that changed since it's not really substantive? I'm just curious. Yeah. If we were going to move it back to the starting point. Ordinarily you would because it's going to require renumbering much of the other sections. Right. But it doesn't matter where it is. I thought you had to move it here. Yeah, I think the, I put that together with the MP when we were still talking. Right. He taught us all that. Right. Can you explain your thinking in terms of drafting and being here? Just tell us more about how, why, why did you get the flow this better here? I don't have a good opinion on that. That was just about the request. I did not have a clear communication. It's my fault that it moved here. Okay. Sorry. That's where it should. If you were putting it somewhere, our convention would be to put it in the beginning. Right. Just because numerically, that's where it comes in the statutes. That's right. Right. Right. So, so do you want to move it back? Well, we'll get on to both of that. Okay. So, section seven you'll see is new. And this is the language that I think was discussed in committee yesterday. I hadn't actually been in the bill yet, but Representative Hashim and I had worked on some language to, and this sort of is related to the removal of the criminal offense. Remember, there was a, the criminal offense of hindering, it's related to the hindering statute that made it a new crime for someone to not obey a law enforcement officer's order at the scene of the service of a domestic violence and RFA order. So, since that's gone, the proposal to add here is that just to clarify that, that the sub chapter is not going to in any way limit or affect the existing law enforcement officer authority that they have under existing law and procedure, including any lawful authority to control the movement of individuals at a scene in the interest of protecting safety. So, whatever authority an officer has now to manage a scene, in fact, that's just one example. As you see the way it's phrased, nothing in this sub chapter shall be construed to in any way limit or affect the authority of an officer under existing law procedure. So, any authority is not limited by this sub chapter, anything to do with the RFA's or the service or the return of service, any of that. So, existing law stays as it is. It's the clarification there. So, thank you. So, if that's already existing law, why do we have to add it back in here? I think it's one of those situations where it's probably not legally necessary, but sometimes it helps to highlight something. So, I think I agree with you if your point is, is it legally necessary? No. It would be interpreted that way by a court anyway. But sometimes you choose, and against your policy choice, sometimes you choose to put something in law to highlight a point or to make something clear to a reader in a given place because without it being expressly written there, a citizen who reads a lot might or might not know them. Thank you. Now, so the, everyone okay? And we'll go on to the IRPOS, Extremist Protection Order. So, this is an easy one to explain. So, this section is struck entirely. You'll see that for a while the two proposals that have been involved here, there were two things going on. I shouldn't say it's not struck entirely. There's one piece at the end we'll get to. But the two pieces related to adding household, family and household members to the list of folks who could petition for an Extremist Protection Order. That piece has gone as is the language that the committee had discussed about if you were going to have family or household members permitted to file for an IRPOS, then in the case of an emergency IRPOS, they could only file it based on risk of harm to another person. Since you're striking IRPOS entirely, obviously you don't need that little subset of. And there's also the after, no after hours, I mean it was becoming. Right. So, the piece related to IRPOS that is still in here, you'll see is section eight. And that is the same language that was in the bill that was vetoed by the governor last year. And that is permitting healthcare providers to let law enforcement officers know when they think a person is a danger without violating federal medical record privacy law. So, that has been unchanged since the bill has been introduced and is actually, as I say, unchanged from the bill that was vetoed last year. Conditions of release prior to trial stays the same, adding a provision that conditions of release include requiring the defendant not possess firearms or other weapons. No changes to the reporting requirements or the effective date which remains July 1, 2020. On the button. Yeah. Yeah. I couldn't find it myself. Can you just point me to the section where it highlights that the defendant can get their hearing, get their hearing within 14 days? Or, yeah. This probably may not be. I think it's in the underlying, probably not in the bill in front of you. 1103. 1104. 1104. I was looking at 1104. Yeah. So actually, I was, Eric, I was going to ask you to walk through the entire bill again. Good. I was going to ask for a section so that might cover it. Yeah. Because, you know, we've been focusing on the changes from draft to draft, and I think it would be helpful to just walk through the entire bill. And so some of, so some of the, you know, folks are thinking, I think we'll come up and we'll walk through. So we're going to walk through the clean copy? Yeah. We'll say we should probably walk through the clean copy. Which one? Do we, you know, have it, right? It's still the first thing we have to do? Right. This might be a little less confusing. Not as daring to stuff that's crossed out. Yeah. I should bring up more questions. I don't remember why that would be. Okay. Do we know when that would... I think there were 11. Okay. Okay. So we have the joint assembly, which is quite quick, because there's some contest for you. It's at 10.30. We already called for 10.30. But I think it should be quick. So if we can come back here. You know, 11.15, 11.30. If we don't get off the floor until quarter 12, then we can finally come back and regroup. But let's try to come back here and do a walk-through. You know, with a clean copy. I think there's two candidates in two positions, so there shouldn't be too much debate. Don't we still have to have people be the vote counters and everything? Probably, but hopefully they do one. Okay. Okay. You know, one ballot. Yeah. So. Okay. So can I ask a quick question? Yeah. On this 14-day, I've just been standing through 11.04. And I don't see that it... Oh wait, I just voted that. Yeah, it's 11.04. The 14-day... Sorry, no question. This wasn't the meeting. Sure. Okay. So we're going to take a pause at 6.10. Do you want me to shoot you an email when it's ready or do you just want to plan on a certain time just after the joint assembly? Yeah, let's try to get back here as soon as possible. After 4.00? Okay. But right after 4.00? No. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And then we need Eric to... No, I think we just have to decide what we're going to do. Listen up. Ask Eric. Okay. Great. So... So we have some... to... I mean, right now. I'm 79. I'm 85. Great. Great. So... Yeah, you know, that's one of the... there's a few things I just wanted to see where the speed was... in rule of law. So... So look at 579, 580. There's a few things I just wanted to try to give you about some... temperature, shack, source, team, opportunity. One is combining them into one and I'll let Eric decide what ever is the easiest so that... we'll either have just 582 or 579. Next time we'll look at it. Looking at what is currently 579, I'm going to ask Eric to put back in there the transitional position provisions based on our conversation that we had whatever that was last week. So... And then on 5... What? 580. Just a quick explanation of what that... Good. The point of the transitional piece is to say that... for those crimes that haven't been categorized in law by... it would be July 1st of... of 2021 that this is how they'll be treated but there's a context of the whole scheme. The idea is right now the sentencing commission is digging through the rest of the crimes and recommending where we categorize them. And... presumably, we'll take that up at the beginning of next May... May I add in more feathers in this room? We'll take it up in the next May. And it essentially gives a deadline that you need to get this done by next session or this transitional period or transition scheme or schematic will go into place. So that's the concept. So... going to 579, I think there's really maybe one issue and I'm going to propose and I think I have time on board with this is the felony threshold and this would be... 2000? Go back 100. Oh, I thought... It was the answer. It was 3000. Do I hear... do I hear 2500? No, no, no. Don't hurry. We could pay them when they come in. So 3000 dollars will be the threshold that will take you into a class E felony which is three years and I still would just have the 100,000 dollar value would stay the same for the level for a class D felony. So that's the suggestion I'm going to make there and I think that's it. It's the combination putting back the transition and changing that felony threshold. So moved. So I mean... Oh, there's none left. Any big issues with that? I mean we're not voting or anything now but I just, before I instruct Eric if there's anything more to talk about. You're going to combine? Can you just remind me again about the rationale that we had for making it 3000? Was it to match up with the other states? It was to not get too far ahead of the other states. The other state is 2500. It's still 3000 because other states are considering using the thresholds. Ten thousand would have been really good. Remind me how many... Is draft 1.1 the last revision we've seen of this? So can you say the... I'm sorry, could you say the... Are you changing the... So the version I'm looking at has the felony structure plus a 500,000 the 2500,000 C... So I'm just trying to square that with what you said about... Which bill? 580? Yes. Sorry. I apologize. Which bill you want? It's why it's good to combine. That's the whole thing. Going back and forth from bill to bill. Which one are you looking at now? Well now I'm looking at the right bill. Yeah. It would be helpful to see... To see... It would be helpful to update that chart on just the right... Just this chart that buckets all the crimes in a table form. Yeah. Just to be able to look at it more more... ... struggling to process things go herrally. Right. I will get the chart... I might even ask for anything in this... Yeah. Hi. Can we just go and get these combined and then discuss it? I was just asking questions to see just because that's the goal is to have one bill. Yeah. Actually, we've never looked at them separately. One bill and I would get this chart that is in the record nation will update what we change. Yes. We'll have that information in the form of discussion. And I'm hoping that we can go that way now. Really next week and I think that hangs out over next week. I'm hoping that there's that... I am starting to feel it crossover. French. Sometimes it's... 13. So as well as that leak actually come back, which is tricky. I kind of like it before that meeting to leave with you. What day is it? June 13. Friday. Friday. I'm sure. Friday. I'm sure. Friday. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. Oh, yeah. Are we to spend more time on the act 215? Stop. I don't know. I don't see what you're... Okay. Interestingly enough judicial retention last night we have the... The female lawyer that was in here last night late. And she came back to when we were meeting. Oh, yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's right. And the rest of the room, but, yeah, so. Well, she said, since the three of you are here, can I talk to you? And basically, we said, look, we have Matt for, Matt said, like, this is my last day. So they dismissed him. And I said, you've got to get this appropriations memo done, and then I have to leave. And coach or smartness, like, kept focused this way, so they reluctantly left. But then somebody else came in who had concerns, who was just a citizen. And saying, like, I've asked to testify. I don't know why. I can't, I'm like, you know what? I don't know what's happening in the other committees. And we don't have a possession. We have a narrow focus. I don't understand. I don't think I really understand what that means. I mean, right. I have a possession of just a little narrow, a few pairs, basically. I do think it would, Tom and I were thinking the same thing. I think last night, we were actually having an environmental court judge up for attention. And we could have one of the two judges testify briefly just to understand. Jenny, I don't think that's really Judge Gershwin's job. Yeah, that would be fine. I mean, we could ask. If we could take more just more, we could ask, but yeah. Because I didn't talk to him last night a while ago about the judge. I just feel like that would be more information than what we've got, frankly, to weigh in on it. So I can seek that information on my own. Yeah, I can ask the extra judge. I mean, it's appropriate. We didn't really have any time to weigh in on anything on that. We really didn't have time to weigh in on anything on that. Yeah, no, we haven't discussed this yet. We haven't looked at the testimony. I just feel like I need more information. But I can, if I'm an outlier and not I don't seek it on my own. I don't figure an outlier needing information. I think it's the process. Generally, individual judges have the environmental personally different because it's a dedicated court with two dedicated judges. But generally, Judge Gershwin will pull the judges to come to us and talk to us. Sort of bringing up the pepper. We often don't see the individual state's attorney. We might, but I don't know. I feel like I need to pose that question. I need to brush it in. Because he didn't have a, I asked him about the bill and first thing he said, he said, I've got no opinion on the policy. Right. But you can't. Right, which was, what he did talk about was the way the system used to be. And in some issues or the way that the system used to be that there was some cases that ended up in two courts. And then in the end, both courts came up with different decisions. So then they had to start all the way over again. And I'm not saying this isn't exactly what he said, but the way I took what he said is that there's some similarities going to, with this new policy that goes back to the way it used to be. Right. And he kind of alluded to that he has some concerns that something like that might happen again. One person that, the citizen that talked to us said, in Montpelier, a lot of people got elected to the city council and are pushing their projects and things are sort of taken away from citizens. And he was worried that the state board would be very political. He was like, yeah, okay, yeah. And I was like, okay, this isn't out of my... The town appeals will still, I mean, there's certain, if you look at the chart that they shared, there's a lot more detail there about the natural resources for, actually, will there's some appeals with like a town permit appeal would still go to environmental court. Right, right. Right, which has has. So that's not, except for some very minimal, I mean, I think they can hear really minimal appeals. But didn't downtowns get exempt or something from the appeals? Yeah. From Act 50. Yeah. So that was the right, that's the issue. Yeah. That was the issue. That was the whole right. And that's not argumentative. No, yeah, no. But I don't know what to comment, I mean, it'd be nice to say, like if it got so chopped up that every committee just looked at a little bit, but nobody's looked at the whole, natural resources. I mean, it's assuming they did. Just spent a lot of time in Vienna. Yeah. So it would be great if they kind of gave us a thank you or something, I don't know, or if we're supposed to tell people to contact them if they have concerns. I mean, yeah, everything is. The contact tools. Natural resources. You know, often people don't like the outcome and they go back and there is another body. Right. Right. Right. But I know this is supposed to be on the floor next week. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the angry attorney was like, I'm gonna start fighting it on the Senate side. Right. And that's what she was saying. You know, that's what she was saying. This is probably a good approach. Yeah, I mean, that's right. Right, I mean. Yeah, at this point. Okay, you're not. You're about done a little bit over here. Right. I do just, I mean, I'll dig into the bell and maybe come up with some more specific questions, but I do just feel like I want to understand the implications more of which appeals now go to the board, which appeals kind of something important how the nature of those reviews might change. Right. I think it's significant. Right. Because we went through that at exit one. And it was, it was. Oh. The thing largely was, yeah. And it really, it's good to have clarity about the process. And I think that the chart that she put together helped to do that. But that's not necessarily within our, within our purview, but a better understanding of the process is always, is always good. I mean, I felt like the overall theme that we were hearing from the voices yesterday was somehow that the people's voices taken out of the process. And so I don't feel like I could. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because I think the kind of thing we talked to some people will say that their voices are taking out of the process right now. And then environmental, that the environmental court is really lawyer up. Yeah. And other people, I think. Right. Do you think the lawyers would like it then? Is it's like more? Some people say the lawyers do like the current system. Right, yeah. I don't know. Right. Yeah. We will definitely have, if that's the buzz, like constituents will definitely ask that and it would be nice to, as Linda said, like know what we're talking about. Yeah. That's pretty intense. It was. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just didn't stop. And it didn't stop. You know what I mean? That's what she came back to sort of. Turned my back on somebody. I mean, I really, I didn't know how to, I was trying to end the conversation. I really needed to talk to you. You know, we, it's my meeting. We had a hard time with her when she, I mean, she was definitely not as in our face, but it was, she was in your bubble. She was more aggressive like this, though. She was aggressive. Yeah. She was a little aggressive. Put a smile on her face. Yeah. You're probably a reasonable defense attorney. Yeah. They all are, all attorneys. Well, she's the best. So, right, so I guess we're, we're having a fight.