Good morning, everybody. First and foremost. Let me thank you all for being here. Thank you all for your continued service to the community at large, asking all the good questions, trying to help everybody find the right answers. Um, today have my legal team here with me. My name, in case you don't know is Kevin Glow Gallery. And as a group, we represent an anonymous grand juror in the Briana Taylor case To my left, this is John Britton. To my right. Erik Weber. Matthew Farah. Um, this is an issue that is about accountability. It's about public trust. And it's about transparency. Um, the grand jury that we represent felt compelled to take some sort of an action based upon the indictment that was rendered and the subsequent press conference and messages from the Attorney General's office about how everything played out at this time. We filed a motion late yesterday to release any recordings, transcripts, reports, etcetera of the grand jury. Aziz, you all well know Judge and Bailey Smith, uh, in the arraignment for Detective Hankerson ordered exactly that through the discovery process. And that's something we can discuss. If you all ask the questions I'll happily address it. But the other part of our motion also was to get a declaration of rights for our client, which would also apply to any other grand juror that was a part of this process. Specifically, we wanted to know from the court system if a grand juror would have the right to speak freely without fear of prosecution, persecution, condemnation, torment, etcetera, about their experiences, a grand juror in this proceeding, Um, again, our client felt compelled to take action. But before our client can discuss these things freely, they needed to know what the rights and duties as deemed by the court. This is not a situation or a case, or anyone should be acting without an abundance of caution and exploring all their options appropriately before they start speaking freely to the press. That includes all interested parties. Uh, three grand juror wisely sought some guidance on, decided, ultimately to file the motion. I cannot really speak to anything that's privileged. Obviously, that was discussed, but we're awaiting the ruling. We are aware of the attorney general statement made late yesterday, which I will finish up my opening remarks stating I think it was a well worded to paragraph public statement that says they will follow and Bailey Smith Judge and Bailey Smith court order. I'm not sure it really says much more than that. Uh, but since you all are helping everyone here in Louisville kind of understand what's been going on with this case, I will gladly answer any questions that I can on. I'll open it up for that to happen. Yes, sir. Mr Wolfson, What in particular was your client agreed by? Were they did you say what their concerns were? The primary concern that our client has eyes. If you watched the press conference after the reading of the indictment, the attorney general late a lot of responsibility at the grand jurors feet. If you look at the statement that the Attorney General's office released yesterday, they attempted to walk that back. And I think the concerns, as we noted in our motion of the grand Juror, probably got their attention. Andi, hopefully that's gonna help facilitate a little more transparency and how things occurred. Does your client believe that the Attorney General live during that front? Okay, okay. My client wants to make sure the truth gets out My client wants to make sure that anything that happened in their becomes something of public knowledge to the extent it's legally allowed, Thio Karen said. He's going to release the recordings. What will the recordings reveal? That we didn't already now couple things with that one. Uh, he said he's going to release the recordings because he's now ordered to publicly file in his discovery. And Detective Hank Yasin's criminal action eso. That's not exactly the same. It's just a blanket release, in my opinion. But it will have access to the public. Depress, etcetera. So get it. Um, what I would expect you will hear is on Lee um, testimony that was provided, whether it had been through audio or video. I cannot tell you if it was a video recording or simply audio. Generally speaking in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and in Jefferson County, specifically, the grand jury proceeding on Lee records the opening statement of sorts of what it's about. A witnesses then called and sworn. They gave limited testimony very short in general. On that point, they go off the record, stop the recording, prosecuting body, whether it be the Commonwealth attorney or an attorney general would make a recommendation at that point, or choose not to until the grand jurors. They're not making a recommendation on they deliberate privately, and then they return their decision. Eso to answer your question. The expectation is it's gonna be something similar to that, but on, um, or lengthy scale than what we would typically see. What can you tell us about who you're great more about this grand jury with right finally makes it clear age rates. And how soon after the grand jury proceeding did he contact your legal four Represents I can't give you any specifics about our client is at this time they want to remain anonymous or is anonymous is possible. We're aware that people are looking around and asking questions, and I appreciate the question I just can't answer it on. But I think the second part of your question again, how soon did they contact? Uh, it was Friday afternoon s 02 days after, um, the press conference in the indictment. And I think the only lag there was just trying to wrestle through what they had seen reported on, then released that the press conference and figuring out where they go from there. Hold on. She was trying to ask something. Is this request when What was there? As far as how unprecedented is the request? I don't know. I can tell you. In 15 years of practice, I personally never seen it. But I only practice pretty much in Louisville, Kentucky. Whether or not something's happened anywhere else, I couldn't tell you. The research that we did prior to filing is so narrow in scope. But I did not really find anything similar. Uh, where a grand juror was requesting some sort of declaration of their rights. Um, state of mind, I think, is what you asked me when the initial contact. Um, I think the best way to state that in that conversation was mawr a curiosity of where they fit in. And what abilities do they have to participate in the conversation? Um, on a grander scale, because grand jurors, what we hope is that they take their service very, very seriously and that they look at everything that's brought to them and make their best decision collectively with the other grand jurors. Uh, I will tell you it's my opinion. Our client did exactly that But after everything got released Uh, certainly not everything. But you know what I'm saying? They wanted to know. What ability do they have to participate in that conversation toe help kind of illuminate the entire process. I think they were aware. And I think you would probably agree if I asked you that there were certain questions that were left unanswered. When do you expect the judge rule on whether your client can speak for you? Mhm. I don't know. A declaration of rights is an interesting action, especially when it's in concert with a grand jury proceeding. Generally, it happens faster than a civil lawsuit. Eso you know, best guess maybe in a couple of weeks. But it depends on what the actual responses are. If you all looked at the pleading, we noticed every council we could find for an interested party. They would all have a right to respond, in my opinion, if they so chose and that could affect the timeline, is there something specific that was left unsaid? The grand jury wants revealed. Tell us. Okay, I can't tell you that because that's a privileged conversation that was held with our client. But I can tell you that, as we stated in our opening, that it's the accountability in the sense of public trust to make sure that everything that can get out there does. On there was some concern that maybe it wasn't. But again, as I was saying, over here, it was trying to figure out what rights do you have and what abilities do you have to help that process? Yes, I know. You've been trying to ask me. Oh, Separated? Well, I don't know, because I haven't seen all of anybody's investigation. But what I can tell you is this when a grand jury in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and ICTs and individual in their case, matriculated to the circuit court system, they have an absolute right to discovery, which is to see anything and everything that is against them. Detective Hankerson has that right? His lawyer will see every bit of whatever the attorney General presented, and whatever they have in their file eso as faras it compromising an additional investigation from federal authorities. I don't know if the federal authorities are looking into something that wouldn't be encompassed in that discovery. I don't really understand how it would impact it, but without full knowledge. I couldn't tell you if I think it would. Yes, ma'am. Cameron said last week that he walked him through all levels of possible charges. So is that true? Based on your conversation with your client? Or if you just focus again, I can't really tell you what I discussed with my client is my client has an absolute privilege in their discussions with us. Um, hold on. Hold on. I'm sorry. Um anyway, the walking them through the six different homicide charges. I don't know if that happened. I can't tell you if that happened. What I can tell you is with release that was put out last night by the attorney General's office there now, acknowledging that they only recommended the one endangerment charges towards Detective Hankerson. What they're not telling you in that release, which is still a question, is what was actually presented to them. If anything, what were those charges? Who were the defendants or potential defendants? And then what was the recommendation, if any? Yes, sir. I'm sorry. You hit what I was trying Thio in his statement, he did say recommended appointment endangerment charges. So does that That means your time was frustrated that neither another recommendation was made or that that didn't protect more again. My client's concerns is making sure that there's the appropriate information for the public asshole to see what's going on to make their own decisions on what happened. I think the important note to your question and hers is what we know now by their statement is there was a recommendation. We still don't know what charges, if any, where presented outside of that recommendation. Andi, I think it's important for you all to know, Azzawi said. Before generally, in a typical case, the prosecuting body would present charges to the grand jurors, then put on testimony, then making off the record recommendation. We don't know that that's what happened here because we're not getting those answers. We're not getting the level of accountability that the public deserves. A Sfar as what was actually presented. There's some very defensive statements from the original press conference that the attorney general held where they stated certain decisions that were made, but they have yet to answer what was actually presented faras the charges and the individuals that were directed to, and I think that is important for the public to know. And I think my client feels strongly same. Yes, ma'am e. It could set concerning all right. Is there a concern that if these filings are released, it could set a precedent for future grand Juries, where grand jurors won't be able to trust that their proceedings remain private as they are meant to? Well, first, what I'll say in response to that is I think it would be more dangerous to set a precedent to not disclose everything to the public that you're allowed to. Now, the MAWR technical answer to your question is, there's a very narrow and short rule that applies here. It's RCR 5.24 subsection one if you don't wanna look it up on your own. That states the grand jury secrecy on what it does state in the rule is that anybody who's in the room during the proceedings has sworn to secrecy, with only two exceptions in writing, one being that the court, at any time at their discretion, can order the release of those proceedings that's happened. The other exception within the rule is again the accused has a right to that information. And at that point, if you read the rule, it also states that the accused through council or presumably pro se can divulge certain information as a part of their own investigation or any subsequent hearings, or try a lawn that action. So the message that gets out there right now that these air secret there never to be talked about is inaccurate. There are ways that it comes out. This was going to get to counsel for Detective Hankerson at some point, whether it's noon Wednesday, next week or whatever on what they do with it. At that point, we don't know, Um, but again, I think the dangerous precedent to set is more of a chilling effect of not letting the public in on what's happening in trying to distort that level of secrecy. To the extent that you're at least by appearance, not putting all of the truth out there, I think you're trying to ask one over there. Did you find say anything about the 80% charges against the other two officers involved in this case? And and again, I can't really tell you anything about our discussions. It's more an issue of trying to see how you fit into the conversation and getting the information out there that you're asking because the public has a right to know Thio was that in an actual quotation markets, That's not accurate. E. I didn't say that, But what I can tell you is again. I think my client has agreed to use that term that what was presented is not being publicly disclosed. Um, I think that's a more fair assessment of what? Where we are a specific concern up, saying What your clients said is that the concern is truth and transparency. That's the best thing I could tell you right now. Truth and transparency. Mattingly Posco I'm sorry. I cannot tell you what my client told me in confidence. Hold on. He's been trying. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Thank you was a key piece of evidence that was not present. It should have been presented. That's an excellent question. Should probably ask the attorney General. And I'm not trying to be flipping, but that's part of what we're here for. These questions are not being answered right now. What we're getting from the Attorney General's office to fold at this point is that they presented everything I would submit to you based on their own statements. They didn't do that. They were asked pointedly, by somebody who may be in the room why they made such a distinction between one witness regarding the knock and announce issue versus multiple other witnesses that said something different. These are the things that the public should probably know. And is that what you're playing after? I told you that your client make any sort of e can't tell you any discussions related to that that I had with my client? What I'm saying is, if you look at the two different statements from the attorney General's office, they're telling you that they haven't told you everything, and they're indicating that they may not have actually presented. What I would say is all the evidence. But we're not gonna know that until we hear the proceedings. Until, if possible. The court agrees with our position and allows the grand jurors to discuss, discuss freely. Excuse me, what happened? What was presented, etcetera and then obviously, down the road. At some point, there may be a trial whether it be on a civil action, uh, criminal action against Detective Hankerson or any federal investigation that's ongoing. Well, hope, hopefully kind of crack open some or information as well. So what's next? What's the next step is going public. So Cameron seems to think that he has no issue releasing your based on this. Last time, in response to this motion you filed that we put out a statement. He also said he didn't see a problem, the grandeur of speaking. So what is what's the next? I mean, what's what's the next step here for you, since you can't really talk about what your client is saying? Well, hopefully the next step is that we get a ruling from the court that my client and fellow grand jurors can talk. But I think what you would you want let me let me take it this way. If that's okay, may address the press release itself. The press release from last night. I've read over it a few times because I figured you all we're going to talk about it on. It's important to our action. The first paragraph is almost exclusively about the court order that was issued yesterday by Judge and Bailey Smith at arraignment of Detective Hankerson read that paragraph however you want always things. They're subject to interpretation, but they're admitting if you want to use that phrase that they're going to comply with the court order. Eso What I think that tells everyone is they're not gonna file a writ to take it to some higher court to address the issue of disclosure within Discovery. It's an entirely different rule. So I think that portion of of the statement last night is solely to say we're not gonna take that to another judge. We're gonna comply with the order, and we will put it in the court file. Is Discovery which mm, other than the fact that it's gonna be publicly in the court file is the normal course of action for the disclosure of those recordings. The part that directly addressed our motion. If I recall word for word and I won't, but I'll paraphrase as best I can. They have no concerns with grand jurors talking about the proceedings. Okay, No concerns. I'm talking about the proceedings. No concerns. Doesn't necessarily mean when you hear something you don't like. You're not gonna change your mind. But more importantly, saying talking about the proceedings in the same statement where you're saying I agree to the release of the proceedings as ordered by the court potentially and we believe narrows it to whatever is recorded. And if you look at our motion, we very specifically stated that there should be an ability for the grand jurors to talk about the things that were not recorded, that air relevant to the accountability in the public trust that we're all seeking here because if no charges were presented against the other two l M. P. D. Detective and Sergeant, I believe, uh, that's something that I believe the public really wants to know. If there were charges presented against those individuals, I wanna know what they were. That may not be housed within those recordings, and we don't know that what. So again, in typical course, it's been my experience that the only thing that is recorded is the testimony presented There is not not necessarily a discussion that's recorded between the prosecuting entity and the grand jurors about specific charges. What happens is, ah, lot of times what you hear is essentially them handing a document to the grand jury and saying we're here on a case against so and so involving the following charges and then they call an individual is a witness, put on some proof, and sadly, in about 15 minutes, people get indicted. But in this case, we know there are anomalies to the normal course. We know that it took roughly 2.5 days. That is, to use a term from a question earlier. It's unprecedented in Jefferson County, Kentucky, at the state level. Um, what we don't know is when did they present charges? Did they do it in the recording? Did they present all the charges they alluded to? I know, over here I think earlier there was discussion of the statement of they walked them through the six different types of homicide is nothing close to what Attorney General Cameron said that the initial press conference. But now they say all they recommended was the wanton endangerment. That issue has not been cleared up. That issue has not been directly addressed. And those are exactly the concerns that our client has that we believe other grand jurors probably have and that the public has e rednecks. Sorry with one indeed, that I have a lot more questions. I mean, that was my initial impression. I want to know what was presented. Just like everybody else in the community. If you're gonna definitively state, this is my only recommendation, which I'll let you all go back and compare it to previous statements. I'm not sure that fully tracked the words from the first press conference. I think it leaves wide open what was presented, which has been directly asked and has not been answered. Yes, sir. Sorry. Just this church shared with you about what happened during those 2.5 days. They tell you everything that happened. Is there some stuff that they haven't told you yet? That you just you know, how much do you know? We've had detailed discussions. I would probably never tell you that. Somebody told me everything that happened in this instance. Our client recounted as best they could their memory. Something for you all to keep in mind. When we're talking about the secrecy and the rules, when you're under the impression or in order or an oath that you cannot disclose something, you gotta watch what you're doing. So what? There doesn't exist I would imagine or written notes from grand jurors. Generally, those were taken from them after the proceedings. Because of these very rules that we're discussing eso there most definitely things that I don't know. But a lot of what happened was discussed a couple of questions, I guess kind of logistically first. So Judge and Bailey Smith said, Here, here's your order. We need these by noon tomorrow. Home proceedings. So say, uh, Daniel Cameron's office complies with a couple weeks down the road. A judge rules on your case in favor. What what more? I guess with that, you know, because you have already mentioned public we will be able to get access to that by parent unit if Cameron's office does comply, but a couple weeks on the road is your emotional judgments in favor? Just give your client and other jurors now a chance to talk more about it in public? Well, to some extent, that's gonna be left up to the judge. Um, but I think I know what you're getting at, and I think it it does potentially if it goes the way we would like it. Thio. I think it gives not only our client, but any other grand juror in this process, the right to discuss that we tried our best. I'm sure if I went back and read it right now, wouldn't be happy with everything in the motion. But we tried our best to do it in a way that would free up other grand jurors if they so chose. But whatever order comes from the court, I'm sure will be carefully considered and crafted on it. May Onley relate to our client, I don't know, but the hope would be, and I think again, for the sense of transparency and just everyone who's interested, knowing as much as they can. We sincerely hope that it would include everything that we put in our motion, everything that's not been recorded, questions that haven't been answered and free. These grand jurors upto have more candid conversations without the fear of any repercussion. My second question for you, when your client came to on Friday, did he come to you? The conversation you initially had? Did you feel it was more him coming to you from a personal standpoint of wanting to be able to talk about this and not that backlash or more of a community standpoint, he felt the community had more of the right to know. Mhm. Honestly, I think it was both, um, you know, again, I mentioned we want grand jurors to take their service seriously because the result of an indictment is somebody's liberty interest. Arguably the biggest interest anyone individual has within our community regarding the laws of the land. But our client at that time by Friday had conflicting convictions. Wanting to do the right thing is a grand juror, but also wanting to do the right thing is a citizen at large outside of that one proceeding or anything related to it. So the discussion initially Waas, how can you do that without opening yourself up to some form of repercussion from the authorities? Primarily. But obviously their discussions of how does that play out on the event you become known and you make these statements and you're subjected toe. You know what we're sitting here doing today? Does your client believe that allowing him or any grand jurors changed the narrative of the grand jury's decision? How it was reached? I'm sorry I lost you on part of that. Sorry. Does your client believe that enabling him or any member of the grand jury is will change the narrative. What information public got from the attorney on how the grand jury reached its this decision and the decision that it can? Well, the narrative in this case has been ever evolving. Eso absolutely, and I think again the point of the whole action is to get MAWR into the narrative. It's not really about changing the narrative. It's about opening it up to aim or full truth for everybody to see. You know, the court system is an interesting place because they talk about the truth, nothing but the truth, and we're gonna get it all out there. In fact, I think, uh, Mr Cameron even stated it search for the truth. Sometimes you don't get all of that because of these certain rules unless somebody steps up and takes action. And again, our client felt a strong conviction to step up and take action to see if they could help get all that information out s So I think it probably does change some narratives, but that's gonna be, you know, something that people consider on their own. Graduating that grand jury was made a scapegoat. I mean again, I don't think I can talk about what we specifically discussed, but there were no derogatory terms used towards any officials or anything that was stated. Andi, I'm not trying to pick it what you're asking me. But again, I think, And if you look at the motion we mentioned, when you run for a position or you're given a certain amount of authority, generally the public expects you to take a level of responsibility that's commensurate with that position. And I don't believe that happened here in the initial press conference. And I think we address that in our motion in hopes that not only is that responsibility being taken by the prosecuting authorities, but that it's being taken in a sense, that becomes a public issue for people to determine who is accountable for what in this action, who's accountable for their actions. That happened on March 23rd or who's not and why those are all the questions have been floating around downtown Louisville for months, and I think, you know, trying to figure out where you fit in that narrative to use your term is what this individual is trying to do so that everybody can get a better idea of what they feel about the process and what they feel about the responsibilities and the accountability of everyone involved. Did your client the only grand jury that feels like or just your client have other grandeur that support this mission? Okay, I can only speak for our client, but I would imagine that there's a similar concern from at least some grand jurors just based on what's been put in the public. But specifically, we did not discuss any other grand Juries in our meetings. If the ruling is in your favor or when the reporting to come out well, that lets the public know the racial makeup of the jury. No, I don't believe so. No sure that I have some information, but I can't share it with you. I would say that I don't believe that it was a typical makeup, so I clarified that I was your client. Want to speak out eventually came out because the judge's ruling a couple of things to that question. Our client has an interest in anonymity, not only because of the rules but also because of the public scrutiny of the case. Um, so at this time, I don't foresee coming off of that stance until, ah, lot changes. Uh, if the ruling goes in our favor, as you put it, uh, then we will address how the information gets put out there, whether it be done, you know, in writing through question and answer whatever will explore all those different options will explore the issue of anonymity. But again, a zapped over here. It's an ever evolving narrative, and we have to have a court ruling before not only our client feels more comfortable releasing some information, but quite honestly is a as a legal team. We're not going to advise our client to speak to anything that could possibly subject them to contempt of court or any other form of prosecution You mentioned a little bit ago. That 2.5 days was unprecedented. Can you explain why it was that it took that long? I mean, I understand there were special things that happened for this particular grand jury, but I'm just spitballing here. Was there some big debate amongst jurors? Like what? Did they have a problem with this as they were being presented? The evidence is that Why again? I can't tell you anything that I discussed with our client. But I'll tell you this. Generally, grand jury proceedings last 30 minutes or less. This particular set of grand jurors waas in service for the month of September. So they heard several other cases prior to the Briana Taylor case, of which none of them would have lasted 2.5 days. And I'll freely tell you none of them lasted 2.5 days other than this. So when I say its unprecedented or a typical, it's because it is. And to answer your question is why I think that is You have to ask the attorney general, and I think from what they've told us thus far, it's because they want public accountability. They wanted to say that they put forward all the evidence before the grand jury proceedings were complete, but we don't actually know that, and that's part of why it needs to be opened up. That's part of why our client felt the way they feel and decided to file the action that we filed yesterday. Can you break down? Those two days happened? Was it just Cameron presented the about 10 minutes or so, and then witness came by another 10 minutes, and then the rest of the time was just deliberation. I mean, I can't really get into that. I can tell you that there were There was I should say, a lot of evidence presented, but I don't know if it was the complete investigation that was presented. I don't know exactly how many witnesses, uh, were put up. I will tell you, in light of that last statement, there are different rules in front of a grand jury as opposed to a jury trial. So witnesses don't have toe have firsthand knowledge of whatever they're testifying to in front of the jury, which is very important for the public to know. So, in theory, at least three or four witnesses could have testified over 2.5 days to the statements of 20 different people. But these are all questions. They're great, and that should be answered. But I'm not at liberty to discuss that with you today, and I'm I'm sorry about that, but I really hope the rest of that information does get out. Yes, sir. Does the grand jury think that there opinions or just represent. I mean, I can't speak to the grand jury is a whole on again. I can tell you my client has a knish you with the levels of accountability and disclosures that have happened to this point. And in our discussions, those concerns did not go away When we discussed the rule of secrecy for the grand jury, when we discussed the disclosure of discovery through the criminal process. So we felt compelled to act upon it. And we're going to sit back and hopefully get in order from the court That says we can help answer some of these questions. Yes. Uh huh. I'll leave that to you too. If the times attributed to you, the your client felt they're used for Mr Misrepresented and was aggrieved that they weren't allowed to vote on charges against not only posture, I could Are you disputing that You saying White Day except to say that you here today as you're relaying a quote to me, I can tell you I did not say anything like that. Um however, somebody interpret something I say I lose control over that. None of us really like that. Quite frankly, but what I can tell you is in the press conference after the indictment was reported, it was stated that certain things were presented and certain agreements were had between the grand jury and the team from the attorney general's office. It is important, and our client feels it's important that however they could have gotten there, whether they did or not is something that the public gets to see. Yes, ma'am, this question has Thio. This question doesn't have to do with the grand jury proceeding, so I'm like, We'll see. Did your client know that grand jurors had the ability to request or suggest other charges be discussed or presented before the proceedings? And do they have that knowledge now? Well, hopefully, my client feels like they have all the knowledge that could have because we've had extensive meetings and discussions. But that's beside your point. It's a great question, and that's a question that hopefully can be answered directly by grand jurors in the near future because you're right. The rules in Kentucky allow the grand jury as a body to investigate, to make decisions on charges, to ask questions of the prosecuting authority and to ask about additional charges. We don't know if that happened here publicly. We don't know what all was discussed. It all. We don't know what all is gonna be in that recording. What, you're going back toe questions over here. That's why we drafted the motion in the way we did, too. Try to get a ruling from the court to say, What exactly can we discuss? Are we limited to the only things that are recorded, or can we talk about the things that weren't recorded? Cause there may well have been questions asked. There have been questions asked about this case from day one from everybody in the country, essentially but by a whole lot of people. 12 people in a room they get to see more than anybody else has likely have a lot of questions as well. That's something we'd like to see. Get out, E don't have all the specifics. I said it wasn't a typical. What I can tell you is there's a standard process where summons were issued to prospective jurors in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It's my understanding that was complied with. This was a regular panel. This was not a special grand jury. Um, I am of the opinion. The attorney general, if they so chose, could have impaneled a special grand jury, but they didn't do so. So it's my understanding. It's not an atypical make up. When you're looking at demographics. It would be the normal course, which probably, it probably appears underrepresented by minorities. But that's something that perhaps becomes a part of the bigger discussion because that's not a typical in Kentucky, and there are different reasons why that is not a part of what we filed. But I think that's important to note if and when you find out the actual demographics, because the whole point of getting all this out there is to see what the next steps are in the next questions and those with concerns that our client had to. And if that involves, how do we impanel grand Juries if it involves? How do we seek and obtain and execute search warrants and things of that major? These are the questions were hoping Get answered. How much of this did your client know before they served on this? Very. I don't believe that my client knew much about the case at all prior to serving on the grand jury, I would like. But yes, sir. Who decided that Mattingly and Fox crew acted in self defense? Was that the attorney general's office or the grand jury? Well, again, I can't tell you anything about my discussions, but I can tell you that there are two statements from the attorney general one of the press conference in one of last night's press release that don't fit together well. In the press conference, he said that his team determined that those actions were justified by Mattingly and Cost Grove, and that the grand jury agreed his released last night states that they only recommended one endangerment. They also reference Let me see if I had it here for you. Our prosecutors presented all of the evidence, even though the evidence supported that Sergeant Mattingly and Detective cost Grover justified in their use of force after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker. That has verbatim a statement from the office of the Attorney General that does not mention the grand jury making that decision. So you're gonna have to ask them at some point, or it's gonna have to become out through the evidence in some case is to who actually made that decision? That sure sounds. And that one, like they did the attorney General's office. So I've got it. I got a question for me now that the attorney general says they're going to release the grand jury reporting because I have to, right? Does that satisfy what you guys? No. No. I want to make that very clear, because again, the proceedings don't contain everything that happened with the grand jury. It doesn't cover anything that's not on the recording, obviously, right? So whatever discussion, if it's about charges or why we didn't make certain charges, how do certain defenses apply what additional facts are there if it's not recorded? And the grand jurors were not given the liberty to speak about that, that nobody's ever really gonna know about that? Or, you know, maybe somebody takes the chance and discloses something and subjects themselves to being put in jail for six months because that's the penalty for contempt of court. Our motion is still active, and we're not backing off because we need to know, Are we going to get it all out there or we only gonna go with what's on the recording? You said your client in the case of way Certainly grand jury pretty well documented. You know, picture of this, especially in global. Your plans from Global. Like how? How did how did you find not know much about this case? Onda. Why did you do before now? Afterwards he filed suit because he wants this stuff Come out if you want. You know that moment? E think I follow your question. Um, and I'll say this. Okay, I'm not sure Anybody within the community who does not work in law enforcement or in the legal community in the court system, etcetera really knew a lot about this case before I went to the grand jury. There are lots of questions about fax and witnesses that are still out there again. There were questions asked in the press conference about statement of one witness versus the statement of multiple other witnesses to the contrary. So I don't know what level of time my client spends watching the news or how they interact on social media. That's irrelevant to our action. But to answer your question is, why do you then seek some sort of declaration of your rights. It's because you did participate for 2.5 days in these proceedings. My client now knows a lot more than most people, certainly more than the general public. And then, you know, obviously has seen how it's been handled from that point and again, within short order, felt compelled toe seek out some information as to their rights because they felt compelled to help get all of the information out to the public.