THIS IS STILL A LOSS FOR BLAKE

[00:00:00]I don't think this video needs any introduction. You know why I'm here. You know why you're here. The rest of the world is going to tell you Blake Lively has won and she's getting attorneys fees. But it's not really that simple.

[00:00:10]There's still a lot to decide. Grab a snack. Maybe on the other side. Let me catch you up.

[00:00:17]>> Hello there, beautiful people, and welcome back to the episode we've all been waiting for. Is Judge Lyman going to rule on 47.1? What is he going to do?

[00:00:25]Is Blake going to get attorneys fees? Is she going to get damages, punitive damages, trouble damages, all the above?

[00:00:31]We have an answer. But do we really have an answer? Oh, this is the case that's never going to end. Breaking news reporting live exclusive statement from Brian Freriedman on Judge Lyman's order.

[00:00:43]We sat down to record this. You guys are seeing the end of this video because we were done recording this, then we got the exclusive. So hopefully I can put this out and can actually be a real exclusive before anybody else does. But Carol You want to read this? I should.

[00:00:58]>> Yeah, go ahead. Read it.

[00:00:59]>> Attribut to Brian Friedman. This is a statement from Brian Freeman's desk. Hot of the presses. Okay. We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and a smear campaign that never happened. Ooh, cluck it. Miss Lively demanded over $300 million in fees and damages, had 10 of her 13 claims dismissed, and then chose to settle and receive nothing.

[00:01:27]Notwithstanding that all of her sexual harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, Miss Lively then pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims. We were just talking about that in our video. You guys are going to hear that. In what proved to be a fruitless mission to obtain damages. Once again, she failed. My clients got blindsided by a Pulit surprise winning journalist and was threatened by one of the most famous movie stars. Oh, this is good. who try to rip away life's works and pristine reputations. Not only were we successful in exposing the truth of their actions, but by the consistent dissemination of facts and evidence, we made sure the justice prevailed. Miss Lively was only awarded limited attorney's fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more. Through all this process, innocent people had their Throughout this process, innocent people had their reputations unfairly tarnished. There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation.

[00:02:33]There was no smear campaign. The court recognized it. The records reflected and we have maintained it from the very beginning. We would not hesitate to stand up for truth again.

[00:02:44]>> Period.

[00:02:45]>> Oh my god, that is so good.

[00:02:48]>> That is so good. That is such a good like culminative statement and it's kind of funny like our video just talked about this the fact that I don't think they would hesitate to do this again even if this was the result and you guys are going to see when we get into the video you're going to have your bearing shake a little bit because again we got the statement at the end of our video so you're going to see it in the beginning so maybe when you see our video you might think some of the points we're making are coming from the statement but no we said as much in the beginning they wouldn't mind doing it again if it means she gets this money >> because he's right. They try to tarnish not one se seven people or eight people that were part of this uh lawsuit. They try to tarnish so many uh reputations.

[00:03:34]>> Yeah.

[00:03:35]>> And >> I love this.

[00:03:36]>> And they and they're cleaning it up by saying no was found, >> right? No sh was determined.

[00:03:44]>> No smear campaign was determined. None of this. And this is a very small piece of the legal uh case, right? The small little fees. This is going to be very minimal.

[00:03:56]>> Wow.

[00:03:57]>> I like that it says we fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of SAH retaliation for campaign that never happened. I love that they almost kind of stole that line from Blake too and my godly because they've been kind of parading that a coordinated effort, a coordinated attack on our client and a smear campaign and they're like actually you were coordinating that effort. Actually, you were the bad guys over there.

[00:04:22]>> Yeah.

[00:04:22]>> While the Hollywood Reporter and everybody else wants to convince you that Blake Lively is getting attorney's fees and she's getting her damages paid and everything else, it's really not that simple. Right now, all Judge Lyman has decided on is Blake Lively has the right to seek attorney's fees. Punitive damages are out of the way. We're going to talk a little bit about that. Again, you all have access to the order. I don't need to read all 47 pages on it.

[00:04:45]So, we're just going to do like a summary and then I'm going to remind you of one thing.

[00:04:51]This means nothing yet. Whether Blake Lively gets a dollar, a million dollars, $100,000, we don't know.

[00:04:59]But all you need to know is we might very well have to go to another hearing to decide that. Six, Blake Lively scores another legal win. Wait till she finds out she's got $100,000, which probably doesn't even cover her purse. So, you guys are going to want to listen to people like me, people like Lauren, people like uh Shasty, people like Andy, people who actually pay attention to this docket to tell you exactly what has happened. And we're going to start with looking at the docket. This case Wayfair action Blake Lively it answered as everybody before the court now is Lively's motion for fees costs and damages under California Civil Code section 47.1 brought in the Wayfair action for the following reasons the motion is granted in part and denied in part. That is Judge Lyman's literal signature. You should have known that was coming. The court has previously outlined background of the dispute at length. Right? We already know the background of this dispute. And then I'm going to jump down to page 47 literally so we can look at what this order is.

[00:05:54]Then we're going to break it down. If you're not here for everything, we're just going to look at the conclusion. In the end, and stepping back, the policy section 47.1 achieves is far simpler than the analysis application requires.

[00:06:05]The statute ensures that if a plaintiff invokes California law to bring a defamation claim against a defendant for making statements regarding sexual assault, harassment or discrimination and the defendant succeeds in dismissing the claim, the plaintiff must pay the defendants's legal fees and cost unless it turns out that statements were made with malice. Lively made statements that come within the purview of section 47.1.

[00:06:27]She prevailed on her defense and on this record there is no evidence of malice.

[00:06:32]Accordingly, she is entitled to attorney's fees under section 47.1. In conclusion, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion for attorney's fees and cause pursuant to California civil code 47.1 is granted.

[00:06:44]The motion for trouble and punitive damages is denied. The clerk of court is respectfully directed to close this docket. But is it really closed? So, I just want to make it clear. Today's ruling does not mean that Blake Lively tomorrow is calling the wafer parties and she's getting a check. There is no dollar amount. There is no dollar amount. There are numbers being thrown around and I've, you know, speculated on my own. I said maybe a million dollars, maybe five. Carol was like $150, whatever the case may be. We don't know what the amount is going to be. And it's also important to know this ruling does not mean she is going to get attorney's fees for the entire litigation. She's only going to be entitled to money from that portion of the litigation of the defamation suit, right? Only the defense that went towards that. only time her attorneys and everybody spent on that portion of the litigation. All right, you guys. I asked for our favorite co-host to join us. She's finally made time for me. So, I'm going to bring Carol. She's just going to jump in the middle of our conversation, but she knows what's going on already. So, hi, Carol.

[00:07:45]>> Hey, >> girl.

[00:07:49]>> I wish I wish we were happier right now.

[00:07:51]Just like super thrilled palm.

[00:07:53]>> I know.

[00:07:54]>> Of a complete L. Mhm.

[00:07:56]>> I will say I I think in the macro of things, Wayfair won. There's no there's no trouble. There's no punitive. And also the judge said, >> "No, we're not going to do it your way, Lively." Which is you're trying to deny them of a of a of a jury trial >> for this.

[00:08:19]>> And that's and he's like, "We're not doing this that way."

[00:08:22]>> Yeah. Yeah, I think that overall it's a it's a win with a micro win for Lively on attorney's fees. But >> which I mean we know that I know that you know that the people who pay attention to this case knows that. But if anybody is just looking at headlines, let's just take a quick look at what it looks like. This is all they're going to see. And I was telling people before you got here is if you're hearing your news from like the Hollywood Reporter is going to say Blake Lively is going to get her fees paid. Uh not really, not yet. We don't know. And even if she is, we don't know how much, right? And then this one over here, um, Blake Lively scores another legal win. I don't know that she will call it that. I mean, she's going to call it that, but she knows her pockets are not going to feel that, right? This one right here, Yahoo.

[00:09:03]Judge, uh, Justin Baldon ordered to pay Blake Fle's actually, you know, it's you.

[00:09:08]>> Also, check out Daily Mails >> because Daily Mails is good.

[00:09:13]>> Blake Fly dealt fresh blow as judge rejects bid for massive payout. Oh, from Justin. This is not bad.

[00:09:20]>> Yes. I mean, I feel like this is accurate. You know, >> this is a cute little one, too, cuz normally Daily Mail is with the too. They would normally also write some crazy Blake Lively wins, but this is actually this is what I would call an accurate headline. Oh, >> yeah. This is what I would call an accurate headline for what's happening now. And I was talking to Carol earlier.

[00:09:41]We're not We don't We don't want to bore you guys with everything that's on the docket because you're going to hear it from a hundred different people. You're going to hear from different content creators. The one thing I I guess both of us talked about is you this is not Blake Lively winning attorney's fees for the entire litigation.

[00:10:00]>> She's not about to get money from December of 20 24 till now. That would literally be bankrupting the wafer parties. That's not what this is. She's getting the money for the portion of this litigation that she won, which is the defamation aspect of things. And I said a million dollars.

[00:10:18]And Carol, you said how much?

[00:10:19]>> No, like 150 180 may at most because >> And I want I want you to win this one.

[00:10:26]>> Yes. It's only attorney's fees for defeating one of the seven claims that that Wayfair brought against her, which is the defamation claim. And then the defamation claim was for three people.

[00:10:41]Live or four, right? Lively, New York Times, Leslie Sloan, Blake Lively. So then they got to split that and say how much it cost to just defend Lively and not all those other three people live Sloan and Reynolds. So >> exactly.

[00:10:57]>> So I think in in all she's she's going to have to spend more money defending her invoices on that than she's going to get in attorney's fees. So I don't know how that's a win. I just I I I I I feel that it is a win because she gets to run her PR spin on it, >> but not a true win.

[00:11:20]>> Yeah. Because, you know, it's just attorney's fee. She doesn't get punitive damages. She doesn't get triple damages, which as you guys know by now would have been triple. And for again, 40, this is why I feel like 47.1 needs an overhaul, right? And if you're Victoria, you're looking in the mirror like, "Okay, I got to do I got to go back to the drawing board and fix this." Well, but then again, now this is a big because I kept saying whatever decision comes out of this is is going to be set in a precedence, which I guess this is not a bad president to set. I like that he didn't go crazy and make a crazy decision and it's going to affect everybody moving forward. So, and I think that also is a reason why he kind of treaded lightly here because this is the first time you you don't want to, you know, blow up the whole thing.

[00:12:03]>> Well, he he made a reference to um people that wouldn't be able to fight this in court, >> that didn't have the means to fight this in court. And it sounds like he didn't want to blow to them, >> you know, and that's who everyone's been saying that's who the law is for, right?

[00:12:23]and not politely.

[00:12:24]>> Even Victoria herself said like it it's to encourage attorneys to take this on pro bono so that they can help these uh people uh from a a true retaliation def defamatory lawsuit. I I truly think if if if the wafer parties didn't stipulate to her in the before they started trial, you know how they were like I mean it was only for trial purposes but still they were like we're going to give you the stipulation of >> you felt what happened happened and you believed what happened happened and that's why you started this lawsuit, right? I think the stipulation way for a gay kind of gave Blake Lively an out to at least get attorneys fees because if on one hand you're saying you believe she had the right to sue and everything then you're almost taking malice away from her by yourself. You know what I'm saying? You're almost giving her the benefit of the doubt or malice. I mean the judge doesn't mention that here and the stipulation was for trial purposes only. It shouldn't have made a difference here but I think like on spoken rule it did. I don't know how you feel about that, but I think them saying we agree that you believe what happened happened and that's why you started this lawsuit automatically kind of gave her the benefit of the doubt of malice.

[00:13:40]>> Um, and you would take that from this section. No, not No, no. I I was gonna I was not overall. I think overall, >> you know, I what I took from it was that when this was fully briefed, and if you remember when they first filed the opposition to 47.1, right? So, it's 47.1 motion, the opposition, and then lively.

[00:14:08]>> Yeah. the stuff that came after was just the cases and the case law right on it.

[00:14:15]When the opposition for the 47.1 had come out, there was not that discovery wasn't done. It wasn't finished until like I think almost simultaneously when Lively got to reply, not when Wayfairer opposed.

[00:14:31]So, I think a lot of those texts that show malicious intent didn't come out till afterwards and they couldn't argue it. They only had those three exhibits.

[00:14:41]You remember the Warren Zavala, Vivian Baker, um, and the Danny Greenberg deposition.

[00:14:48]>> They could have attached so many more text messages. And and if you remember, Lively also fought uh to show Taylor Swift text messages till the end of September when Discovery was fighting it. She's like, "No, no, no. I don't want to show it to them."

[00:15:03]>> Those those show malicious intent >> and so >> I think so too >> in my opinion.

[00:15:10]>> I think so too.

[00:15:11]>> But they had to brief this back was it July before they even had this?

[00:15:17]>> July. Yeah.

[00:15:18]>> Yeah. Something like that. July. and they had barely found out about Van Xan.

[00:15:24]>> Yeah.

[00:15:24]>> During that time. So, a lot of this happened early on. And I think that's why people are all also frustrated because they're like the judge dismissed this so early and then that that motion came afterwards to briefed and all that, but >> we're missing a lot of documents that they could have really uh harped on the malicious component of this uh of this law.

[00:15:49]>> Yeah. And I think also like on the face of it >> again they keep calling it she prevailed and even the judge Lyman himself here and I think this is the first um what do you call it? My godly had been using the word she prevailed in this litigation and everything and judge Lyman hadn't quite literally said that yet and it would kind of felt icky to me.

[00:16:10]>> Uhhuh.

[00:16:11]>> Reading I don't know if you know. Okay, I'll show you right here. It's on page 47.

[00:16:16]>> Um right here uh Lively made statements that come with the purview of section 47.1. She prevailed on her defense and on this record there is no evidence of malice. I literally felt gross.

[00:16:30]>> Right. This is the first time like Judge Lyman is kind of saying, "Oh, she won."

[00:16:34]Whereas in the past, it's kind of like, "I haven't concluded this. I haven't said this. Don't put words in my mouth.

[00:16:40]I just, you know, made my decisions or whatever."

[00:16:42]>> I think it goes back to the same thing that I just mentioned, which he's saying on this record of 47.1.

[00:16:49]>> There's none of that.

[00:16:51]>> But it was briefed way earlier.

[00:16:53]>> Way too early. all the text happened or or like they finally had them all because they only used the depositions, not not everything else that they had to show like where um you know she's claiming the weight issue was an ASH claim, but there's text messages that show that she knew Baldon had a bad back and that that's he asked >> and even the conversation of oh he talked about his genitalia and everything. We didn't know at that point that we were talking about circumcision.

[00:17:25]>> Exactly.

[00:17:26]>> You know what I'm saying? And I mean, honestly, I think you are right. He made a decision to dismiss way too early. I think it could have lingered. It could have hung around a little longer because if if we wait for Discovery to come around, if we wait for some of these deposition information to come around, I don't think he makes the decision he made.

[00:17:41]>> Yeah.

[00:17:42]>> Right. Um, but at the same time, on the face of it, I think he I and I always said he didn't want to make this decision, but I think because it's the first time he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, which is why I think he ended up splitting the baby cuz do I really want to say, "Oh my god, this woman deserves nothing and this didn't happen to her. I've already dismissed."

[00:18:04]And I think which is where the win comes for Wayfairer and Justin Baldoni. He's dismissed the sexual harassment claim, right? He's saying that didn't happen >> the way you're saying it. And then you have to kind of go back to the order where even Judge Lyman says, I have to look at this like we're in a movie set.

[00:18:20]Come on.

[00:18:21]>> We're not in an office setting where you can claim some of these things to even be inappropriate. You are supposed to be an artist. This is supposed to be your craft. You should be I mean, I'm putting words in his mouth now. And you also have to remember his brother is a director. He knows how these things work. But I think the fact that 47.1 is being tested at all for the first time played a big role in the decisions he made in this case because again whatever decision he makes is going to set a president move a president's moving forward. So the fact that she's getting any type of partial fees whatever >> is mainly because this is the first time this is being tested. If this law had been around for 10 years 20 years I don't think she gets a dime.

[00:19:01]>> But I think he's thinking of the consequences for people moving forward.

[00:19:04]people who probably will be real victims, people who will have suffered real trauma, real harassment, >> if he gives this as a total win for Justin, it hurts those people moving forward, right? Because now people are going to site Lively versus Wayfair like it's >> nothing and he got um she got nothing, so you don't get anything.

[00:19:23]>> But the way he's doing this now, and I almost I think I'm talking myself into fine, Blake Lively may get a dime, but it's not really for Blake Lively. we now have to consider future victims who will be using this law >> and >> and I think that that's what the I with the judge saying that like there's a part in there that he says like they don't have the means. I think the word is means and if we think of like um Wayfair and who they are, they probably care about if this covers other uh victims and >> people they probably care about this too and they that >> not probably. I think definitely.

[00:20:03]>> Yeah, this aligns with who they are and I think that's also why they agree to it because this aligns with who they are and what their mission is and the things that they care and value. So I, you know, and it's going to be minimal. I think the biggest thing and the biggest takeaway is that Lively wanted to deny them their day in court over this and wanted to do like the judge said if we went this route, this is malicious prosecution and denying somebody of uh procedural rights and he's like we're not doing that. And that's a huge win.

[00:20:44]I >> think I think you're right. if we know if if we're right about who Wayfair is and why we've been supporting them this whole time and in a weird way and I feel like this is going to be so hard for people who don't understand to get it.

[00:20:56]But this is a win that we are all okay with if if it means Blake Lively getting a couple dollars, but in the future for real victims when this happens, they have a leg to stand on, right? And the the average person walking into this video is going to be like, "What side are you actually on?" We're on the side of truth. We're on the side of real people not suffering. We're on the side of people being able to tell their truth and not suffering. In this case, the face of the campaign happens to be a person who is lying.

[00:21:25]>> But tomorrow, we're having a different conversation. You pull somebody off the street and it's a regular Joe, regular Jane, regular person. I want them to be able to go through this process and get the due. You know what I'm saying? So, in a way, you are correct.

[00:21:40]>> Wayfair would be okay with that. And it covers more than just the SH and SA. It covers discrimination, which is way way more prevalent. And I think that they would care about these matters as well.

[00:21:53]You know, that being said, they got to argue what they got to argue in court to try to get this away from theirs. But I think ultimately they're not going to be upset about this because who they are.

[00:22:05]>> I don't think so. But what I am a little bit excited about is the possibility of us going to New York again because there is possible that there's a hearing in our future. How do you feel about that?

[00:22:15]And you know >> Oh, that's the Yeah, that's >> I'm ready for three more margaritas.

[00:22:19]>> Yeah, >> I'm ready to turn up real time now. And this time if we do go I'm going for two days. I'm not doing the one night. I literally got a headache from >> Yeah. I would like to turn around to the airport. Yeah.

[00:22:33]>> I don't want to do that. Yeah. chance to go to a hearing because now that and again to kind of go back to the beginning all that's happened right now is Judge Lyman saying you are entitled to seek attorney's fees.

[00:22:44]>> Now you come to court and you tell me show me your invoice and show me what >> what it is and how much you think you deserve. And now Wayfair can also combat some of those things. So we could get a little too date >> too.

[00:22:58]Yeah. A little something. Hello one two on two. I think so because if if you remember the NT anti-slap uh thing that they did, they did an invoice with they did >> with everything that they charged. I think it was 178 or 176,000,000.

[00:23:16]So yeah, I think we will have a hearing.

[00:23:19]Blake Lively is going to do Blake Lively things and she's going to make up this big number and dramatize the number and she's gonna do Blake Lively things. So we're gonna get a hearing, I think. So pretty much it's going to be like we're going to get their billing, their records, their invoices or whatever. Wafer gets to object to whatever entries they want to object to.

[00:23:40]>> Then we're going to get briefs and then the judge is going to decide. I hope it's like a two, three day process.

[00:23:46]>> So we can talk to Cigarette for more than a couple minutes. You know, we see them on ready to tussle. Girl, >> no, I'm ready. I'm ready because I want to ask Cigarette a couple things about And we also heard Cigarette was already out here spinning this narrative. I don't I'm not even prepared for that. My head hurts too much.

[00:24:02]>> I'll deal with that later. I can't deal with it right now.

[00:24:05]>> No, but so um one thing uh Judge Lyman 50 uh rule I haven't read the whole thing either, but rule 54 was all up and through here which decides the issue of liability. We are two different stages of this thing which is okay Blake is entitled to fees. How much of those fees is she exactly entitled to?

[00:24:24]>> Limited. 54 54D is limited relief. Yeah.

[00:24:29]>> So, this isn't I don't think this is a seven-digit figure. I think this is going to be minimal. This is minimal.

[00:24:35]>> Yeah. Now, I was going to say you had asked a quick question earlier in case anybody else was wondering if Jen Ael as a person has any liability right now.

[00:24:43]And the basic answer like on surface is no. Like not automatically, I don't think. We're going to find out more later. But I don't know. Eventually, could she be part of the fee? Yeah, probably. But right now, I don't think so. I think Wayfair and somebody actually pointed out earlier. I mean, their insurance is going to cover this.

[00:25:02]It's not it's not going to hurt them.

[00:25:04]And this is the one time I want Carol to win this argument. I need it to be $150,000, $200,000. If she gets a million, I think it might actually hurt.

[00:25:12]>> But I I don't think that still is going to be enough for her, right? Because I don't think that's going to be enough.

[00:25:17]>> In the end, it's not going to hurt Zaritz.

[00:25:20]>> Yeah, it's not.

[00:25:20]>> This is like him having I don't know, a a landscaping job. a big landscaping job done in front of a house. Like that's >> landscaping job is crazy. That is so true.

[00:25:30]>> Change. This is chump change.

[00:25:32]>> That is true.

[00:25:33]>> It's like us getting three margaritas at dinner.

[00:25:38]>> This is not You know what? This is not a big deal to him. Um >> yeah.

[00:25:45]>> How fast do you think we get this hearing though? because I need to know if I need to start looking for New York um New York tickets because I'm not trying to buy an expensive overnight ticket again.

[00:25:55]>> Uh I think that they're probably going to file pretty quickly their invoices and stuff unless Lively is strategizing how to make that number bigger than it is.

[00:26:07]>> You know what though? If she's smart, don't do that. Cuz again, the point is way gets to object to these things. If you want to inflate those numbers, go ahead. But we all going to be sitting at a hearing looking at you like, "Girl, them numbers do not make no damn sense." And the headlines, I'm going to make sure those headlines read Blick like we was out here cooking the books.

[00:26:29]Now all of a sudden, tax invasion. A whole new a whole new case is coming out. No, but I think on the surface like I mean, and I think initially when I started sending the screenshots, you were like, "OH MY GOD, I'M ANGRY." AND then you started like slowly coming back down. You're like, you know what?

[00:26:45]>> You know, no. Like, no. She's going to be This is going to be embarrassing because the amount of fees that she's going to get in this versus the amount of fees she's spending to do it. She owed her contractors more money than she's going to >> Okay, Carol, I'm going to make a video and say that and I'm going to credit you. That is so funny. You owe your contractors more money than you're going to get from this. Oh my.

[00:27:12]But I feel like that would eat after we get the decision because if I if I make that video and she she comes out and she gets more money, I'm going to be like, I'm gonna have to eat curl 2 what what does she owe her contractors? 2.1 2.2 >> and some change.

[00:27:28]>> There's no how many billable hours is that? No, there's no way.

[00:27:33]>> No, I don't think she gets that. Um, but I'm I'm excited that this is gonna get a bowl on it at the end of the day. Mhm.

[00:27:41]>> Like um we're gonna be able to round this out, but I I saw Bachi posted earlier. She's like, "I'm glad this is over." I was like, "What are you talking about? It's not over. We still have to decide how much money she gets and everything else." So, at the end of the day, there are still more conversations to be had about this and more headlines that's going to come out. And I'm sure she's on Canva right now as we speak editing today. A judge ruled in my favor. Oh, I love that.

[00:28:06]>> This is just for what lives uh what does it say? Um, Blake Lively believes like she she's truly the type of person that believes that she's right in a politically correct way. If you just said it like straight up what you're trying to say, you would say Blake Lively is delusional.

[00:28:24]>> She's 100% dulu. And I don't know that she knows that she is, but the people around her who continue to let her get away with it is who bother me. Like, how are you people not telling this woman?

[00:28:35]>> Like, you can't keep doing this. Like why are grown people around her not advising her to stop? And at the end of the day, the day got to end. And this is this is a perfect statement to kind of round how the day has gone today.

[00:28:49]>> It's chef's kiss.

[00:28:51]>> Amazing guys. We appreciate you for hanging out. this this there's probably going to be more conversations to be had in the next couple days between what people write and hopefully something comes on the docket very soon to let us know when this hearing is going to happen how soon so we can make and I don't want Judge Lyman to do that thing where he tells you on a Monday there's a hearing on Wednesday please don't do that like please just give give us a proper heads up okay we have things to plan um but we appreciate you guys for hanging out um this case is going to come to an end I know we say it never ends as a joke but I think we are going to get to an end eventually. And thank you guys for sticking it out far. Um there is a little bit more ways to go. Don't give up yet. Drink your water. Wear your florals.

[00:29:33]I had to Oh, are we actually wearing florals to hearing next time? Cuz I I decided not to wear florals the last time, but I think we should next time.

[00:29:42]>> I um I wear a pin, a pink pin.

[00:29:45]>> You know, I'm going to get the pin. I'm gonna get the pin. I'm going to get the little brooch or pin or whatever. I'll do that. Yeah. But thank you guys for hanging out. We'll see you later. Um, if you've been hearing my kid in the back, I apologize. Um, if you haven't, ignore what I just said. We'll see you on the next one. Have a good day. Bye >> bye.

[00:30:12]around and find out. Around and find out. Around and find out. Around and find out.