audio1963236874

Brian Vukodinovich is involved in a federal lawsuit against retired judge Richard Posner. Vukodinovich claims that Posner refused to pay him for his work. The case has been ongoing for two years, with delays and motions to dismiss. The judge in the case, Teresa Springman, referred the case to a magistrate, Joshua Kolar, who ruled in favor of Vukodinovich. However, Posner's lawyers have filed motions for one-sided discovery, preventing Vukodinovich from obtaining evidence. Vukodinovich believes that the delay and unfair treatment are intentional and that the defendants are trying to hide something. Good evening and welcome to Slam the Gavel, the show that tells it all regarding family court, other court issues, as well as CPS. I am your host, Mary Ann Petrie. This episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPS Protect Consulting Services. Child Protective Services cases are among the most frightening experiences any parent can endure. Don't face them alone. With urgent assist by CPS Protect, you get the peace of mind to raise your children as you see fit, and the personalized assistance of their team of expert child welfare consultants, former CPS investigators themselves, right when you need it. Get started absolutely free at cpsprotect.com forward slash register, and this is available in all 50 states. And if you could go see the site, go to the site, please do your job.com and sign the petition. Please do your job.com. We need 2,000 more signatures. That would be very helpful. I have a return guest on. I have Brian Vukodinovich back on. Last time he was on, it was Season 5, Episode 44, where we talked about Please Pay Up, Mr. Posner. And he's also been on my podcast, Season 4, Episodes 69, 99, and 119. Season 5, Episode 13, 37, and 44. And Happy Valentine's Day to everyone, including you, Brian Vukodinovich, and thank you for coming on and taking your time to be on my podcast, and what's going on with your federal case? Well, there's a lot to be said here. There's a lot of things to be concerned about as of late, actually, for quite a while, actually. But just recently, one of the defendants, Richard Posner, he was, just to update things a little bit with the audience, he's a retired federal court of appeals judge from the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. Very well-known judge, was on the Seventh Circuit for roughly 36 years, and then finally retired, and then brought me on. He heard about a jury trial federal case that I won, and asked me to come on board with him. He started this new company, the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Safes. So I agreed to come on and work for him in 2018, and then we made an agreement, how much I was to be paid for my work, and so forth. And then he refused to pay for my work. So I gave him an opportunity to pay, I didn't want to file the lawsuit against him, I gave him fair opportunity to pay his debt, what he owed me for my work, and he didn't do so. So then I was forced to go ahead and file a federal lawsuit against him, which is pending. And it was filed on May 5, 2022. So we're roughly two years in now on the lawsuit, and for the most part, many times cases are already decided within a two-year time period, and trials have already taken place, that's a long time. Right, or they're already decided before you walk in the door. Yeah, well, this one appears to be headed in that direction, I'm very concerned about things which I'm going to talk about here in a second. So then it was all the regular nonsense that lawyers do, they file their motions to dismiss and all of that kind of stuff, which they did, they did that in August of 2022. And usually a motion to dismiss doesn't take generally a whole lot of time to get decided, and in this particular case it did. It took, you know, there was eight months went by, there was no ruling, and then I filed some papers with the court about the situation, why it was taking so long, and then the judge in the case, her name is Teresa Springman, she, I filed a memorandum because of the inordinate time period on April 19, 2023, inquiring as to what was taking so long for the ruling, because she had, it had been over eight months, it went by, and then she, then on May 10, roughly three weeks after I filed the memorandum, she referred it to the magistrate for his recommendation, which was kind of concerning, because she could have actually have done that eight months ago, if that's what she intended to do, but she waited until I filed that document, so it sat there for over eight months, and then... And, you know, it makes me wonder, can't she think for herself? Well, you know, it's just, it's kind of disturbing, you know, these judges, who knows what they're doing? I mean, it's taking so long for these cases to get resolved, and I mean, I, you know, it's kind of hard to figure out exactly, you know, I mean, you walk into the courthouses, they're very quiet, I mean, you don't even know if the judges are even at work, to be honest about it, there's no way to monitor that, you know, but all I know is, you know, eight months goes by, there's no ruling, then when I question it, oh, and then all of a sudden she refers it now to another judge, which of course is going to take more time, so then this magistrate, Joshua Kollar, she referred it to him, and then he finally made a recommendation on June 21st, and he basically determined that my claim should proceed against the judge, and then Springman, Judge Springman, on September 25th, affirmed his ruling, so now we should have been at that point set for discovery. I waited all this time, that was, now we're at like roughly 13 months later now, after the motion to dismiss, and that's way too long, so okay, I waited it out, I finally win the ruling, and now when it's time for discovery, then this magistrate, Judge Kollar, he sets a hearing for December 14th, 2023, where we're going to go in and we're going to discuss discovery and so forth, so then what happens is these lawyers do what they do best, they start playing their games right away, and then they filed a motion for bifurcated discovery, in other words, to have it done in phases, so what they proposed and what Kollar agreed to, and by the way, I should add, in direct conflict with previous precedents from this division on bifurcated discovery, Judge DiGiulio in this district had previously determined in two or three cases already earlier that there should be no bifurcated discovery, that it should be even-handed on both sides, but Kollar did not want to follow that. So Kollar, he lets Posner's lawyers conduct discovery against me to their benefit, but he does not allow me to conduct discovery against Posner, to my benefit in the case. In other words, one-sided discovery, and that is blatantly unfair. Oh yes, I've never even heard of someone pulling that. It's ridiculous, you know, they've been claiming all along, in fact, I received a letter from Richard Posner's previous lawyer from Chicago, it was dated February 28, 2022, and I'm going to read the relevant part of the letter here, so the audience will have an understanding of what's going on. Here's what he said to me. He said, what you clearly do not know is that soon after your conversations with Judge Posner in early 2018, he received a confirmed diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, and then he went on to say, as to the substance of your claim, we believe that medical evidence will show that the judge did not have the legal capacity to enter into contracts in 2018. So in other words, I did all the work, and then when it comes time to pay, oh well, you know, he had this illness, he didn't have the legal capacity to enter into a contract with you, and the medical evidence is going to show it, okay, fine, we should be in discovery now, and they should be providing that medical evidence, but guess what? They have not provided any evidence whatsoever. In fact, during that entire time period, Richard Posner was actually running the center, I was the executive director, he was the, it was his corporation, he was running it, he was still teaching law at the University of Chicago Law School, he was still doing interviews, he was writing books, and he even took a job as an advisor a year later in 2019 with some company in California as an advisor of some sort. So then, you know, it's really funny that, oh well, you know, your contract with him, it was not a legal contract because he was incapacitated, but yet he could do all these other things. So, you know, I want to get this into a trial so I can point all these things out. So now they don't want to let me have that, they don't want to let me have that medical evidence that they say, which I'm actually entitled to. Their defenses, those are their defenses. Here's what they said in their defenses. My plaintiff's claims are barred because any alleged contract if formed was unconscionable at the time it was made. This is a lawyer nonsense you're talking. Plaintiff's claims are barred among other reasons. Now get this one, this one's really laughable. Plaintiff knowingly induced defendant to enter the alleged contracts. Plaintiff knew that defendant lacked the mental capacity to do so. Can you believe that? Their lawyer had already stated in writing that what I clearly did not know was that he had a confirmed diagnosis. His own lawyer said that, his previous lawyer, and then now in the lawsuit, oh, they say that I knowingly induced Faulson or Richard Faulson to enter the alleged contract because I knew that he lacked the mental capacity to do so. What a bunch of nonsense. And then they also said that I failed to perform the acts promised under the alleged contract. And that I failed to perform the acts that I promised to perform. What a joke. A jury will undoubtedly, undoubtedly, when it sees that and hears that evidence, will undoubtedly issue a verdict in my favor. This is just absolutely ridiculous. Right. And they know that. They know the jury's going to issue a positive verdict in your favor, and they don't want this to happen. So they're going to drag their feet. And my concern is it shouldn't matter that this is a well-known federal court of appeals. That should not matter. But I can see that it does matter here. They're holding this magistrate Kolar. Okay, I'm not going to let you have discovery. Even though you've already waited all this time, you waited for the motion to dismiss. We're going to let them have another bite at that apple and keep discovery away from you. What are they trying to hide? It's very, very obvious. And let me add also on top, on top of all of that, there's questions. Now, they have stated in the litigation, oh, well, the Posner Center was, actually, you should have been being paid from the Posner Center, but it didn't raise enough money. Well, you know what? Then the question now is, if that's the legal position they want to take, which is incorrect, actually, because he promised to pay me out of his own funds, and they know that. But since they've taken that position, then let's see the financial records. Posner told me, I have it documented, that he thought that he would be able to raise well more than $1 million in donations for the center. So then, I have that documented, over $1 million. And then the center dissolved in July of 2019. And according to what their lawyers are saying now, there was, the center raised only $20,600, according to what their lawyers are saying. And when the center dissolved, there was no money. There was no money. So the question is, what happened to that money? And how do we know that all that it raised was $20,600? How do we know that without seeing the evidence? We need to know. These were donations that came in from the public. The public deserves to know what happened to that money. Should there be an audit? Absolutely. We need to know exactly how much money came in by donations. We need to know who received that money. We need to know what happened to that money. We need to know who cashed the checks, and so forth. We need to know that. We cannot go by just what these lawyers are saying. Because I'm sorry, when you get a tub full of money, and there's a lot of lawyers surrounded in that money, and all of a sudden the money's gone, I'm sorry, but there are serious questions there that need to be answered. And so my concern is, see, I would get that information in discovery, but for some reason that court is trying to hold my discovery back because that court knows that once I get into discovery, I'm going to get my hands on that information, and it may not be a pretty sight to look at. I can't say right now if there was embezzlement involved, but we don't know. The only way we're going to find out is for that money, and that should be public record. Those were public donations that come in. So the question is, why is the court so concerned about me not conducting discovery? Only he gets to conduct discovery, but I don't. And another problem is this. They stated on internal revenue service documents that no employees were paid. No employees were paid a salary, which was a blatant lie, and the lawyers know it, because there was an employee that was paid for being a research director, and then Posner had a falling out with her. Her name was Joyce Hutchins. He had a falling out with her, and then she threatened to sue him for unpaid back wages. And then they coughed up the money that was owed her, and it was $8,000 and some change. And then they finally wrote a check to her, and they had been arguing all along in detail. The Posner Center never paid any employees. They told the IRS. They lied to the IRS. They blatantly lied. And then this lawyer, one of their main lawyers, they have lawyers in New York, Chicago, and Indiana. I'm representing myself. So it's taken all these lawyers for them. So this lawyer they have, he's basically their lead lawyer. His name is Justin Ellis. So just recently, he filed... Now, they're trying now to argue statute of limitations. Now, remember, first the letter was, oh, well, the contract's not valid because of the lack of legal capacity. That was the first game that they played. Now, in the litigation, oh, well, there's a statute of limitations issue here. Rukidinovich can't proceed in this lawsuit because of statute of limitations and so forth, which is an absolute joke, and they know it. So then, to support the statute of limitations position that they're taking and to support their request to the judge that there be bifurcated discovery, as I talk about, I don't get it, only they do, this lawyer, Justin Ellis, he filed on November 16, 23, he filed an affidavit, a declaration of Justin M. Ellis in support of defendant's memorandum in support of Faye's discovery, and he said that, quote, a search of the Gmail account shows that plaintiff's last email, last sent an email to plaintiff on May 21, 2019. That's directly out of his affidavit, and it was blatantly false. Now, he wants to say that the last time was May 2019, that's the last time he sent an email. So what happened was, we had a hearing on December 14, 2023, and I produced, in open court, I produced an email that I sent to Richard Posner on November 11, 2020, which is a long time after May 21, 2019, and within the statute of limitations, and in my email, I was asking Richard Posner if it was time to pay, he needed to pay for the money that he owes me for my work I did to him, and I also mentioned the agreement in there, and then this lawyer, oh, then he just, he was out of it, okay, when I handed it to him and he read it, tried to, oh, he told the judge, Polar, oh, well, we just recently noticed that there was a problem with the defendant's email account, we just recently noticed that, and I said, oh, really? Then why didn't you report that before I just produced this email to you? So that you lied on your affidavit, a blatant lie, which is a felony crime. So then the judge, Polar, instead of giving the lawyers the third degree, hey, how come you guys stated one thing and yet he's got evidence here that what you stated was not true? He actually sent an email on November of 2020, it was, and what you said was false on May 2019 was the last email. He didn't give the lawyers the third degree. Instead, Polar tried to give me the third degree. Well, why didn't you produce this email to them before today? And all of that nonsense. So I said to him, I said, hey, you know what? We're not in discovery. See, you don't want to let me have discovery. I don't have any obligation to produce their crimes, evidence of their crimes against them ahead of time. I followed the federal rule of procedure. I asked Polar to take judicial notice of it under the federal rules of civil procedure. You don't have to give them any kind of advance. All you have to do is when you ask for judicial, when you request judicial notice, you have to produce a document at that time. And that's exactly what I did. So again, protectionism, let's protect the, you know, the person who's the influential person here, a retired judge, and let's just, you know, walk all over the individual here who was conned into working for free. And it's ridiculous. So I filed a motion for sanctions against this lawyer, Justin Ellis, because of what he stated on the affidavit. And what he stated, what he did, was a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code Section 1621, which governs that false statements made under penalty of perjury, and his affidavit was made under penalty of perjury, are crimes punishable by fine or imprisonment up to five years. That's what the statute states. So I pointed that out to the court in my motion. I told the court that they need to sanction him, and they need to refer his crime of perjury to the U.S. Attorney's Office. And I cited a Seventh Circuit case where that was actually done in another case. It was perjury done by a lawyer, and the Seventh Circuit referred it to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and I asked, I'm asking this court to do the same. Now, since I've done that, this lawyer, this Ellis, he's just gone bonkers now, and now has threatened me, he has sent me two letters threatening me now that if I don't, if I don't withdraw that motion for sanctions, and if I don't, if I don't drop the federal lawsuit against Posner, that he is now going to ask the court to sanction me for financial sanctions, and for an order to disallow me from ever filing, you know, a case again, and all of those things. That sounds like blackmail, Brian. It's absolutely blackmail. You just hit it right on the head. You hit it right on the head. It's absolute blackmail. And under the rules, the model rules of professional conduct of the American Bar Association, Preamble 3 states, quote, a lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of a business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Clearly signing an affidavit and filing in federal court, falsely stating that, oh, there was never an email sent by the plaintiff after that certain date on July 19th when I showed proof of it at that open hearing, clearly that was deception, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty. And Preamble 5 states, a lawyer should use the law's procedure only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. So, I mean, come on. He's clearly trying to intimidate me, clearly threatening me if I don't withdraw. He committed a crime. The federal statute covers it. The evidence is there. It's submitted now in court. It's in the court file. And now I have to be subjected to lawyer intimidation that if I don't withdraw that motion, that he's going to seek sanctions against me in different forms. So, we'll have to see what this judge does here. Well, this is deep legal abuse. 100%. It's a crime punishable, actually, by prison, according to the statute. So, I mean, we cannot let this go. We cannot let lawyers simply walk into a federal court or state court or any court, for that matter. And, you know, we all know what they do. We know lawyers lie. We know that, unfortunately, it's been going on. But you know what? When you catch them red-handed in writing, which is the case here, okay, the court cannot look the other way. So, I'm going to, you know, we're going to see here that Judge Stringman has got this in front of her and we're going to see what she does here. She cannot let this slide. She cannot let this lawyer bring in a false affidavit. And it was relevant. It was obviously important to him to state that date on there because it was something that he thought was going to help him with his legal arguments. But it was a false argument and it was a false statement. And he's caught red-handed. He knows it. The court knows it. Now, something needs to be done about it. Now, this Kolar now, Joshua Kolar, now in the meantime, he's been nominated to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. So, in September, they had a confirmation hearing where he appeared in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee with Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin and all those people. And he testified how he always felt, here's what he said, quote, my job is to follow binding precedent. And quote, I try to make sure that I'm rigorously analyzing anything that comes before me and taking into account all relevant facts. That's what he testified to the Senate Judicial Committee, that he follows binding precedent. That was hogwash because he refused to follow the precedent from this division that I cited where the judge explicitly stated there should be no bifurcation of discovery. Discovery is a two-way street, not a one-way street. And that's one of the problems that we're having in this country. These lawyers get nominated, they come into the committee and testify to one thing, oh, here's how I do things, you know, they lie. And then when they get on there, they do quite the opposite. We saw that with Amy Coney Barrett on her testimony on the precedent with Roe versus Wade and all of those things. Oh, I follow stare decisis, that's following precedent, it's a legal term, she used that term a lot in her testimony. And then when she got on there, what did she do? She voted immediately to overturn Roe versus Wade. Now, you know, the political issue with that, that's, you know, for others to decide where they're at with it. My point is, she testified, I followed precedent, and when she got on there, she failed to do so. And Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and the rest of those people did the exact same thing. And we just had it with Joshua Kollar. He testified, he follows precedent, my case clearly shows that he does not. And now he has been rewarded with an appointment to the Seventh Circuit, so now he's on the Seventh Circuit. So it's just, you know, what's happening in our country is just, you know, it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. You know, I just, you know, I get so many, you know, messages, and I know you do too, from, you know, pro ses from around the country that are getting a shaft job, you know, by judges, and there's just nowhere to turn. You know, this is a really, you know, this actually should be an easy case. It was a breach of contract, I did the work, I have the, you know, it's documented, my work is documented, I've got, you know, the communication, the initial communication, where he hired me, and then we amended the agreement. Shortly thereafter, for how much I was to be paid, I did the work, nobody, you know, and then all of a sudden, now all in, you know, Huckadettovich, he induced Posner into, he knew that he had the legal, how would I know? His own lawyer even said in the letter that what I clearly did not know, his own lawyer said that. And now, and these judges in this case now, oh, well, you know what, let's let the lawyers say whatever they want to say, in order that the person of influence can somehow win, and the regular person will lose. That's what's going on. That's, you know, so we, you know, I'm sorry, I'm just, I call a spade a spade. That's what's happening here. Well, people disuse people nowadays, and if he promised to pay you this money, you should be paid. It shouldn't be a big deal. Why are they wasting taxpayer dollars on dragging this case out forever? Why doesn't he just pay you? I mean, does he look you in the eye when you come in the courtroom? Well, he doesn't come in there. He never has showed up for any court proceedings. So now they're claiming that, you know, he's ill and all those things. Now, that's what they're saying. And I can't say that he is or isn't, because, you know, I have seen no evidence whatsoever. None. And that's what should be produced in the case. If you're going to say one thing, if you're going to make an argument, and this is what your position is, and your lawyer has said that this is what the medical evidence will show, then show it. And if he's not there, the lawyers still have an obligation to state the truth and to not lie, like they did, like he did, on that affidavit. Clearly was false. It was a false statement. And the judge needs to do something about that. That cannot slide. And, you know, many people are saying, why don't they just, why don't they just pay? Now, by the way, his wife, his wife, Charlene Posner, she offered, she sent me an email. He sent me an email, and he offered me $10,000 for my trouble. Okay, this was before, and then she, and then she said, she apologized. She said that, she apologized for me being, her words now, quote, so misled. His own wife admitted that I, she said, her words, so misled. So, I mean, if a jury hears all this information, it's very evident of what the ruling is going to be, but we can't, let's try to keep this away from the jury. This is a judge, you know, forget the fact that, you know, he actually hired this person to do the work. Let's let this judge con this person into working for him for free so he can get free labor, is exactly what this, what happened here. And the lawyer says, oh, well, the medical evidence would show he did not have the legal capacity. All of that nonsense. Then where's that evidence? Let's see that evidence, and for me to be denied discovery, everybody knows in a lawsuit, both sides get discovered. But in this case, let's keep it away from Bertha Denevich, because we don't want him to have the evidence that's going to prove his case. And also, let's not let him see the evidence of what happened to all of this money that came into the Posner Center. See, because, you know, if you're a donor, and you donated money, and, you know, you have a right to know what happened to that money. And all we know is, it's gone. Right. And they don't want to show what happened to that money. So we have some, you know, substantial problems here, and it's an obligation of this court, Judge Springman, ultimately, Kolar, try to protect them. Okay, I'm going to let you have one phase discovery, only you get to do discovery on Bertha Denevich, but he doesn't get to do it on you. So he protected them, and then he hightailed it off to the Seventh Circuit now, so he's out of the case now. He's innocent. So now there's a new magistrate that all of this is in front of, and I have all of this filed in front of Judge Springman now, and she has the authority now to say, okay, now we're going to do what's right here. We're going to overturn, we're going to overrule Kolar's rulings, which should have never happened. You will now get to conduct discovery, we will now get the information, we will now get the truth out. Cases are supposed to be about the truth, not hiding the truth. And that's exactly what's happening in this case, to the point that even this lawyer, Justin Ellis, filed a false statement on an affidavit to support the legal position, which is an infected legal position, and it's a crime, and something needs to be done about it. And I'm not going to stand for any intimidation tactics by Justin Ellis or any other lawyers, or anybody for that matter. It's not going to happen. I'm sorry you're going through this. This is just absolutely just a waste of taxpayer dollars. This case should have probably already been in trial. Their lawyers said we need to, quote, put the case to an early death. They want the case to be put to an early death. This is their own words. Because if it's put to an early death, then all of the information about the money that is gone, that was donated in, then that information never comes out now. If there was embezzlement of funds, nobody's ever going to find that out now if this case is put to an early death. And also, the false information that was given to the IRS regarding what they stated about no employees, they lied to the IRS. If the case is put to an early death, they don't have to worry about that any longer. If the case is put to an early death, forget the contract that was entered into it. It should be honored. See, by putting, as they said, needs to be put to an early death. And Judge Springman needs to keep this case alive and well, allow me to conduct discovery, and to set a trial date and let a jury see and hear the evidence in this case. Not this nonsense that's currently going on, protecting former judge, and then the magistrate who was protecting him hightails it off to the Seventh Circuit. Now he's over there. And now here we go now with the new one now. Delay, delay, delay. That's what's going on here. But I want to reiterate, the threats and the intimidation tactics against me by this lawyer, Justin Ellis, will not work. And I do expect the court to do something about the perjury that was committed in the case. It was a felony crime. Well, I think I told you on one podcast when I was running my federal case, about dropping off exhibits to the opposing attorney, who was representing CPS and their corporation, you know, the alphabet soup deal. I remember. Yeah. And I and how I had dropped off these exhibits, and he he hauled me into a boardroom, and he leaned over the table and said, Okay, I know you've been to court, but this is pretty much how it's going to go. I know both those judges in the federal courthouse, and I'm going to get this case dismissed. It's pretty much how it's going to go. And I said, Okay, well, here's your exhibits and have a nice day. So I went and put that into an affidavit, submitted it to all parties. Everyone needs to know what people are saying to each other. You know, people said, Well, why didn't you record him? Well, what am I going to do? Say, Hey, I'm going to record you, then he's going to shut up. Right? Well, yeah, I remember when we talked about this before, and this is exactly what goes on. It's routine. Lawyers, especially if you're if you are pro se, then they just jump on that, and they try to intimidate you. I know they can't do that with you. I know you well enough that I know you don't tolerate that. I know that for sure. But this is they're trained to do that. I know this may not sound good, but my term is they're like trained monkeys. Okay? This is how they're trained to do things. And as soon as they see pro se, then they start throwing themselves on you. Well, I know the judge, and this is how things work. Well, it shouldn't matter if they know the judge or not. That shouldn't matter. And it shouldn't work that way. It's supposed to be fair. And we all know that it's not. We all know that we have to fight the struggles that we have to obtain justice. And you've done it. I do it. And there's a lot that try to do it as well. And unfortunately, the courts, I mean, it's showing right here in this particular case here. I mean, it's so obvious of what's going on here. But I'm not going to, you know, I mean, I will not stand for it. So I'm just waiting for, I'm just waiting for this Judge Springman to make some rulings here. She needs to set a trial date. She needs to overturn Kolar's rulings. She needs to allow me to have discovery. And just like what was told to you about, oh, well, I, you know, I know the judge and this is how things work. That shouldn't, you know, I'm not going to tolerate that happening here. I won't do it. And hopefully she's going to do the right thing here. We'll see. We'll see. I'm concerned. It took, you know, just everything that's, you know, clearly they're protecting Posner. There's no question about that. Oh, so he must be paying them. Oh, he'll pay his attorneys, but he won't pay you. Yeah. Well, you know, a lot of people have been commenting on, you know, on that part of it. Well, you know, why don't they just pay what they owe you? And I mean, I don't know what the deal is there as far as, you know, are these lawyers doing this pro bono for him? He's a retired judge and let's do him a favor. Let's kiss some hind end here, whatever. I don't know. We don't know that there's no way to know. And it shouldn't matter anyway. But most people are of the thought process that lawyers, basically, they want money, you know, they're not going to do stuff for free, basically. So it's like, well, why wouldn't you just pay the debt and be done with it and do the right thing? And we move on. So they'd rather give it to the lawyers and these lawyers want to, you know, file perjured statements and so forth. Well, then you know what? I'll be ready for him. And then, I mean, he's, this guy's up in arms now. He's become very irrational, sending me letters and emails, threatening me, sending me FedEx, letters by FedEx, threatening me. All of it is, of course. So, but it's not going to work. Now, by the way, we need to mention also, if we have enough time here, that they have been tracking my interviews with you on here. And their lawyers actually filed court documents not too long ago in the case. They took, they filed 212 screenshots of you and I doing these interviews. And that's filed in the case. And they complained, they stated in court documents, they actually stated in court documents, well, Burkudinovich has written at least one book. He's been doing interviews. They put a link to an interview that you and I did. And they put the timeline in there about a comment that I made about how I was going to expose the judicial corruption at the trial and so forth. So they put that link in there with the timeline so people could see it. And then they put, they said that I'm doing blogs and doing public appearances, you know. Well, you know what? Why are they so bothered about that, that I'm out there talking about judicial corruption? Don't, you know, this lawyer, this Ellis and all the rest of the lawyers, it would seem that in law school, they would have learned in a first year law school class that we have something in this country, it's called a First Amendment. It seemed like they would have learned that. Go ahead. No, you go ahead. I mean, the audacity, I mean, that clearly was to curry favor with the court. Hey, judge, listen, he's out there talking about judicial corruption. Everyone is. Not just you. Of course. But it's bothering them to the point that they actually file that in the case. So they took Posner's money to take 221, what, screenshots of our podcast? 212. Oh, 212, sorry. 212. Yeah, they actually file that in the case. And also, by the way, they have, we had to file this report. We had to give preliminary notices about who the witnesses were going to be and what the evidence is going to be and so forth. And guess what? They listed you as a witness in the case. They actually listed you as a witness in the case. They said that they used the word unconscionable regarding the interviews, you know, and so forth, things that we've talked about. Just ridiculous. So are they saying all my interviews are unconscionable? Well, in particular, the ones that, you know, well, we'll have to see what they do at the trial if they put, you know, they put you on the stand and how far they want to go with it. But they have clearly already stated in the court documents, you have been interviewing me. They put the link to one particular interview in there, even with the timeline. Look at this. Look at what Rupert Dinowitz said during the interview. And then they listed you as a witness and they put, they filed 212 screenshots. Who takes 212 screenshots of a public interview and files it in court? What purpose would that serve other than trying to slant a court against you? Look, Judge, they're talking bad about the judiciary. They're talking negative about the judiciary. I mean, they have some serious problems here. And the only way that they can get out of this is for the judge to continue to do what Kolar was trying to do by keeping the information, the discovery away from me, and then somewhere down the road, figure out a way that they could get creative and just dismiss the case. And that way, nobody finds anything out in terms of evidence. They get to walk away with the crimes that were committed, the breach of contract, the perjury that the lawyer committed. They get to get away with all that stuff if the judge will continue to do what Kolar was on a path to do. That's what's happening here. So we're going to have to see what this Judge Springman does here in the case. Now, clearly, they're probably going, you know, they're monitoring my free speech here by my appearances and interviews and writings and so forth. So, wouldn't be surprised at all, they're going to probably at some point put this in the case as well. Because if that's what they want to do, that's up to them. But, you know, we have a right to do this, and we'll do it. Well, like I had told you in one of my other interviews, and you may have heard in one of my other interviews, but my federal court magistrate just did not read my exhibits. I submitted over, well, no, no, I submitted about 900 to 1000 exhibits, which is evidence, and he just wanted to dismiss the case. And then we had a telephonic phone conference where he verbally said he did not read or look at the evidence. So I had to file a motion the next day to get him to read the exhibits. So he probably did that the next day with, you know, two minutes, right? Yeah, well, I mean, well, when you say that, when you say that, you know, I might, you know, I'm thinking right away, in your case, let's see if we can just somehow disregard the evidence, which clearly they're not supposed to be doing. But that's exactly what their procedures is, how they like to do things. And I got to tell you, on December 14th, 20th, when I brought that my email into play in the case, after they had lied about the 2019 statement they made, and then the judge, Kolar, he said, well, you know what, we're, you know, we're 30 minutes in here, and I got another matter I got to attend to, so we're not going to have much time here. And I'm thinking, well, wait a minute, I got to have an opportunity to speak here about some things here. So I wanted to get that email into evidence there. And then, so I produced it, and then I asked him to take judicial notice of it, and he wouldn't. And then he adjourned the hearing. And then the strangest thing happened. I got in the elevator, I was almost to the door to leave the federal courthouse, and then a marshal approached me and told me that the judge wanted us back into the courtroom. So then we went back in there, and then he said, oh, I had an opportunity to read the email in chambers, and it appears that this email supports, you know, the plaintiff's position on the statute of limitations. And then this Ellis, oh, you know, all of this and all of that, and we had a problem with the judge's email account, you know, and all of that nonsense. And then, so he admitted it in there, and then now this lawyer, this Ellis, he's demanding an electronic, he wants, I don't know if this is authentic or not. Now he's questioning. Now, do they actually think that I'm stupid enough to forge an email, to just create a false email and file it in court? I mean, if they're that stupid, then I don't know what to say. So he's trying to question the authenticity of it now, and he said, I want you to give me a, you know what? We're not in discovery, okay? I gave you the paper copy of it, okay? That's all I have to do. We're not in discovery, okay? When we get in discovery, you can get all the information. You know, you want discovery from me, but you don't want me to have discovery against you. And here's what he's stated now, if we have a minute, or do we have a minute for me to? Sure. Okay, and then here's what he stated now. He's just gone off on the deep end on this email thing, okay? He said in his court pleadings that I sat on it, the email, quote, giving defendant and the court no notice and no chance to prepare for the upcoming hearing. That I didn't give the court and the defendant a chance to prepare. I had no, that hearing was for discovery. That's what that hearing was all about. I had no obligation to produce that email to them ahead of that hearing. Quote, defendant has not yet been able to determine whether the purported email is genuine. Ridiculous. Quote, the court should not consider the purported email for purposes of bifurcation because plaintiff has used it to improperly ambush defendant and the court. Oh, you know, when they get information in front of them where you actually have evidence of their crime, they get so uncomfortable, then they want to call it an ambush. It's okay to commit the crime on their end. Oh, yeah. When you produce it, then they want to call it an ambush. Yeah. Ridiculous. Quote, plaintiff chose to submit it by surprise at the December 14th hearing. I had no obligation to produce it before that. Quote, worse, plaintiff submitted the purported email only in paper format and has so far stonewalled defendant's attempt to get more information about it. Ridiculous. Quote, the court should not permit plaintiff to gain an advantage through surprise tactics. Ridiculous. Quote, but even if the purported email is authentic, it changes nothing about the need for phased discovery. What a joke. What a joke. You know, God is watching. Yes. Well, they're going to learn that somewhere down the road, for sure. And now he's filed, you know, so I said to him, I said, hey, you know what, you have that email. It was sent to Richard Posner's email account. You have that email. Oh, well, you know, we haven't found it in there. Something happened, whatever. So I asked him, I sent him a couple of emails and I said to him, I said, hey, listen, I said, you know, that was sent to your client's email. Did you do a forensics report? When you're threatening me, show me forensics evidence that that email is not in his email account. And he didn't do that. So instead, just recently, he filed court, he filed papers stating that under his direction, members of his law firm conducted, after I produced that email, subsequent to that, oh, members of our law firm under my direction, okay, have done an analysis of the account and still can't find that email under his direction. This is why it needs to be taken up by the U.S. Attorney's Office, because the feds can confiscate that computer, that email account, because right now, that email may not be in there now. They might have deleted that email and done all of that stuff. We don't know. That's why there should be a prosecution here. You know, that's like the wolf guarding the henhouse, how they say. Well, you commit the crime, and then later on, well, I'll be the one that'll investigate the crime, whether it happened or not. And you actually committed the crime. That's ridiculous. Mm-hmm. It's happening everywhere. It's everywhere. Okay, now, there was one more point I was going to make. Remember the letter that was sent to me by Posner's previous lawyer when he said that Posner didn't have the legal capacity and so forth? Yeah, yeah. And that the medical evidence was going to show. Yeah, and he said, very sorry this happened, or something like that. His wife said that then. Oh, well, I thought he did, too. He said that he didn't have the legal capacity to enter into the contract and that the medical evidence will show that he did not have the legal capacity, is what he said. And he said that I clearly didn't know that after my conversations with Posner that he was going to confirm the diagnosis, which I still don't know that he received, because I've never seen any actual evidence of that. His wife then emailed me and said she was so sorry for being misled. Those were her words. Sending a boy to do a man's job. Yeah, exactly. And now, just recently, his lawyers, I wanted to read exactly what his lawyers, his current lawyers now. Go ahead and speak while I'm looking for this, Marilyn Kay. Oh, well, sure. I mean, there's, you know, I'm writing my fourth book. So that will be Raised by These Wolves, How Family and Federal Courts Are Failing Our Children, Volume 2. So I'm already talking to parents about that, and they are submitting their stories, people that have been on my podcast, because they need to know that there's a lot of lying going around. The taxpayer needs to know there's a lot of lying going around, and people are suffering based on lies. And that is so important for everyone to know, is to stay out of these courtrooms. I'm referring to the family courtrooms. And I know you and I have talked about this, too, before. Well, for one thing, your book, Raised by Wolves, I was honored to write the foreword for it. And you have a lot of great stories in there about particularly things that are going on in the family courts with Adrian Miranda and Lee Grenade's cases and many other cases that you've detailed in there. And people need to read that. I didn't realize that the family courts were as corrupt as they are, and it appears now, after the research I've done, it may well be the most corrupt type of court that there is in the country. Cash for kids and all kinds of things are going on. You know, judges are actually making money off of these things. And so, you know, people need to read the book for sure, because we need to enlighten the people of what's going on, such as what's going on here right now, in this case, with what's going on, and what happened with what you've disclosed, what happened in your case, and what you raised in the book, the issues, people, you know, we need to educate the public, and we need to take a stand in this country about what's going on in the courts. It's just that bad. I mean, these guys now are saying that the fact that I cited what that lawyer previously stated, that I quoted verbatim what that lawyer stated to me in that letter, and now his current lawyers are stating that that was misleading, that that lawyer didn't know, you know, the situation, I'm paraphrasing here, and that that should not be regarded in the case. Well, you know what? His lawyer is the one that said it to me. And now that it looks bad, and I want that evidence, and they, you know, made these legal arguments, now all of a sudden, oh, no, no, we shouldn't pay any attention to what that previous lawyer said. And they actually had the audacity to say in the court filings that what I filed was misleading. I quoted his lawyer verbatim, and then they want to call that misleading. It's unbelievable. Right. It's only what fits into their false narrative. You know, it's like dealing with an angry ex that just doesn't know when to quit. Exactly what it is. Exactly what it is. Yeah, I don't know. They sent me a withdraw the amendment complaint motion for sanctions, my objections, all of that. Otherwise, they're going to file motions for sanctions against me. It's just absolutely, absolutely unbelievable. The law is that there is a societal interest in furthering the truth-seeking function in the particular case before the court. That's what the law is. And that's what this court needs to do here now. The nonsense should stop. We should be in trial. Let's get this into a trial. Let's see what happened here. Let the donors see what happened to their money. Let's let a jury decide the issue of the breach of contract. A jury should be, that's why we have a jury system. We don't have, you know, we don't have a formal system where lawyers get to lie. We know they do it, but that's not how it's supposed to work. But that's, you know, that's what they want to do here. And I'm simply not going to allow that to happen. It's not going to happen. Yeah, they think they forgot about the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not lie. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Oh, it means nothing to them. No, it means absolutely nothing to them. Zero. Zero. Unbelievable. Yeah, it's, I feel sorry for a lot of parents and people struggling through these courts, because it's just, it's just not going to stop until everyone starts speaking out. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. I have a lot of people that message me on a daily basis, a lot of people. And everybody wants to complain. But we need people to step up to the plate. Instead of just complaining with each other. You know, we need people to write letters to the editor. We need people to file complaints with state bar associations against lawyers who are doing all these things. And there's a lot of things that people can be doing. You're doing your part. I'm doing my part. And we need the people to start saying, you know, there's been polls, recent polls by Gallup and other agencies, polling agencies. There's the confidence in the judiciary, particularly the federal judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, is at an all time low. It's at 25%. And I think I saw one recently where it was at 20%. People simply don't trust the courts. No. And they have a right to feel that way based on everything that's been going on. We all know what's going on with all that stuff going on with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, you know, taking money from donors and so forth, and then making rulings on cases. It's just a crime that these people aren't actually in jail. But that's how it works. And until the people step up to the plate and start voicing their concerns publicly in a big way, demonstrating, you know, writing letters to the editor and so forth, it's going to stay the same. Yeah. Yeah, it will. It will. It's going to stay the same. I mean, I think the more people that complain, and the more complaints that are put in, then, you know, action can be taken towards that person, because they've got, oh, gee, we've got like 80 complaints here. It's about time we do something about that. Well, one of the problems, one of the problems is the process is such an infected process. For example, if you file a complaint against a federal judge, okay, first of all, that complaint is, you know, they keep it in secret. The public doesn't get to see it. So we don't know what judges are doing what, because they keep those in secret. And then other judges in their circuit, a lot of times, they're friends of each other. They make the decision on what, and I can tell you this, I've done a lot of research it's almost, almost a hundred percent of the complaints against the judges are dismissed. That cannot be legitimate. There is no way, if there is a, let's say, a thousand complaints filed against judges across the country, that all thousand of those complaints, that not one of them even had, not even one, had any legitimacy. And then they have this statute, you can't discuss it, the fact that you filed a complaint and so forth. This is where Congress needs to step in and start putting some laws in play to actually change that process. You know, when people get charged with crimes, you have public trials, they post it, the newspapers, the news media posts what the charges are, even before there's a trial or conviction of the judges. Let's keep it, it's a secret society. We actually, you and I have talked about that before on shows. It's a secret society, they have it how they want it, and it could be changed, but Congress doesn't want to change it. And the judges get to, you know, they get to cover each other, and that's how it works. Yeah. I'm sorry to say. It's just, it's just sad. It's very sad. It's very sad. So what are your suggestions, Mary Ann? What do you think people should do? People should get together, I don't know, file a petition and abolish the family court. I don't know how you abolish the family court, because I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a state representative or a senator. But it should just somehow be worked out that it's dissolved. And all these cases go back through civil court. And a person can have a six person jury. And I think things would be handled a little bit more fairly, I hope. I hope there would be some hope for running a case that should not drag on for six years. No one's divorce case or family court case should be going longer than 12 years. This is ridiculous. It should be fixed and ended in 30 days. I had Carl Roberts on from Colorado Resilience. I'm going to have him on again. But that was also his suggestion. And I liked it. So let's just stop the stupidity and putting people through so much trauma. And our children through so much trauma that they're never the same. Who was that person? Carl Roberts. What does he do? He has Colorado Resilience. I can pull up his email. Yeah, I had read his email. And they wanted me to look at how it was written out or, you know, and I thought it was great. Carl Roberts from Colorado Resilience, on an effort to change the family court system through legislative initiatives that hold individuals accountable. I need to get a hold of that guy. Oh, yeah. I'll do an email introduction. I need to get a hold of that guy. Hey, do you want me to pause this? Do you want me to pause this until you find it? No, that's okay. Yeah, yeah. Go ahead if you can. Okay. Okay. I'm going to pause recording. You know, going back to the letter that was sent to me by Posner's previous lawyer on February 28, 2022, when he said that I clearly didn't know about his diagnosis and so forth, and that the medical evidence will show that he did not have the legal capacity to enter into contracts in 2018, and so forth. So then when I cited that into evidence in the case, now that letter is evidence in the case now. So I'm pointing out to the court, this is what his own lawyer has stated in the case. Then his current lawyers, headed by this Justin Ellis, here's what they filed recently in an objection to the phased discovery that they're pushing. This is what they filed in a response in opposition to phased discovery, which means they get discovery and I don't. It's in phases, okay? Quote, Plaintiff's reliance on a 2022 quote from defendant's family lawyer who did not know the party's history is misleading. So, his lawyer sends me the letter, makes specific statements in the letter. I quote his own lawyer's specific statements verbatim, and then his current lawyers now state that what his lawyer previously stated, quote, he did not know the party's history. Well, then he shouldn't have been making statements. He made the specific statement that Posner did not have the legal capacity to enter into contact. That's a big deal in this case. So they want to say, well, the contract's null and void. It's unenforceable because he had some kind of illness and he couldn't have made the contract under the law. That's what his lawyer said. And then when I show that evidence in the case, the current lawyers now are rebutting basically what the previous, his own lawyers. Okay, the family lawyer, my reliance on a quote from the defendant's family lawyer who did not know the party's history is misleading. What's misleading? I quoted the family lawyer verbatim. Verbatim. What is their problem now? Are they worried about having a jury trial? Are they worried that I'm going to put that lawyer on the stand, Robert Kaufman? And the answer is yes, I will put him on the stand and I will make him read that letter to the jury. And then their current lawyers, they can tell the jury all they want about how that lawyer didn't know the history or whatever and all of that stuff. And are they going to say to a jury that when I bring up to the jury what that lawyer stated and I bring that letter into evidence, is his current lawyer is going to say to the jury that that was misleading? It's ridiculous. And this is a lawyer who committed perjury already in the case. And now, oh, well, you know what? I don't care what that lawyer, what Pazner's previous lawyer said. He didn't know the history. Well, then he shouldn't have been making statements about it. It is not evidence. It is not evidence. So, you know, too bad for you now. That's what trials are for. Right. That's what trials are for. And Judge Springman needs to put this on the trial calendar. We need a jury trial here. We need to put all this evidence in. We need to find out exactly what happened here. Not all this lawyer mumble jumble garbage that's going on. Let's get the evidence out there. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that I'm going to actually put the evidence on and I'm going to show how he conned me into working for him? And then when they say that he didn't have the legal, oh, he didn't have the legal capacity to enter into a contract, but he had the legal capacity to do all these other things, writing books, teaching at the law school. Right. You can't have it both ways. And cannot. And this Kolar did everything he could to protect them with the discovery thing. I think we've got to keep that discovery away from Morgan Donovich here. We don't want him getting the actual evidence that we know is there and exists. We can't have that happen here because we can't have the people know how corruptly things are done, you know, in court cases. That's what that's exactly what's happening here. And that's what we have to safeguard on here. So Judge Springman needs to do her job. She's a judge. She swore to take she took an oath that she was going to follow the law and the Constitution and the rules and so forth. That needs to happen. This division has several cases against bifurcated discovery. The question is, then how could Kolar disregard the precedent and then rule, OK, I'm going to not allow you to take any discovery against the defendant, but he gets to get discovery against you? How does that work in a fair system? I don't know. And then after testifying to the Senate Judiciary, oh, I follow all precedent, you know, I'm going to tell you, this is going to open up some eyes. And their lawyer, their lawyer, if he hasn't, you know, I mean, I'm surprised he hasn't figured it out yet, that intimidation is not going to work with me. We're going to get to the bottom of things here one way or the other, one way or the other. Oh, yeah. Try all the games that they want. He's hoping that the judge is going to somehow find a way to dismiss the case. Now, they've already lost one dismissal ruling, but then they're going to get more creative. I can see that in their plans now. They're going to get more creative. And the question is, is she going to bite on it or not? Is she going to play the game with that? That's what they're expecting. I hope she does the right thing. You know, she's on, they call it senior status. They get to retire and still do cases and, you know, all of that stuff. And, you know, I don't know, you know, that stuff. You know, so let me just not do anything for a long time. When I feel like it, I'll get to it. You know, I'm in their offices and their chambers working on the cases. This is an important case. Actually, when Kollar was nominated, there was an organization called the Vetting Room. And then they were putting things online about Kollar's history and so forth. And they actually called this particular case one of his notable cases. They actually stated that when he got nominated for the position. I actually filed that in the court documents as well. So the Vetting Room has called this case a notable case. It is a notable case. I mean, even though he's, you know, this involves him in his personal capacity, he is a former Federal Court of Appeals judge. And he certainly knew the law. He knew when he got into this contract with me what the ramifications were, you know, for the contract and so forth. So to be two years in and then sandbagging. And then when I get evidence about how their lawyer committed perjury, then for him to be stating that he was ambushed. Ambushed? He committed the perjury. And now he expects me now to provide evidence of his crime to him ahead of time so that he could play his little game and try to fix things as they go along. And then later on, oh, I had members of my firm, after you produced that email, conduct a search, you know, under my direction. Maybe he needs a psychological avowal. Well, there's a whole thing that needs, a lot of stuff that needs to go on here. Yeah. And for sure, I mean, you know, he's clearly is, he's become very irrational with his threats, for sure. And what needs to happen here is the judge needs to refer that to the U.S. Attorney's Office, just like the case that I cited that happened in another case. They need to confiscate that computer, that email system, the feds do, and conduct a forensics review, not under his direction. And if it's not in there now, what happened to it? Exactly. But we know one thing for sure. We know I sent the email. He has that in his hands. The court has it in the file. So it's there. We know that. What we don't know is how far this court is willing to go to cover things up. I'm hoping that this court is going to do the right thing, get this thing, get this thing for trial. Let's get the information out there. If they don't, if they think they're, you know, they're on solid ground and they're up and up, they shouldn't be worried about anything. It's very clearly they're worried and they well should be. They're going to be in big trouble when we get this into a trial, I guarantee it. Most definitely. Oh, I agree with you. And I'd like to, oh, I'd like to have you back on again for updates. Absolutely. Absolutely. As everyone knows, I do this with my guests and their cases. I interview them and I also do updates because we just need to keep track of everybody. I'm in touch with several people that you've worked with, Adrian Miranda, Lee Grenade, and several others. I'm still in touch with them. We actually did the one show with Adrian not too long ago and so forth. So I'm in touch with several of the people that you've dealt with. So we need to help each other and communicate with each other. And we need to get people to watch your show here so you can enlighten them on what's happening. Because we can, actually, we can do some things as a society, as a public, to effect some changes here. But we've got to light a fire underneath the chalice, actually. And it can be done. Definitely. Oh, how can people reach you if they have any questions or do you want them to come through me? Well, they can do it either way. They can go through you or they can go on my website, www.brianvukadenevich.com. My email address is on there, emotionforjusticeatyahoo.com. So that's right on my website. And if they go on my website, they'll see interviews that I've done and writings that I've done, some op-eds that I've done, and letters to the editor where I'm talking about corrupt things that have been going on around the country in the course and so forth. And they can actually use some of those writings. They can actually use them as a template. So they can do it. I encourage people to do that as well. It doesn't just have to be me and you out there doing these things. When people see something that shouldn't be taking place by public officials, they need to write, well, I'll tell you, that's what these public officials fear the most. They do not want to open up a newspaper and see an opinion piece or a letter to the editor where their corruption has been exposed. That's how we change these things. And if they look at my stuff on my website, I mean, that can show them how to do it, actually. And they can contact me, you know, I can help them with that stuff too. By all means, let's all work together. Yeah, absolutely. We need to do this together. And must, you know, we've got to do this, you know, we've got to get a lot of people on board here. We've got to let the judiciary, the government knows, you know, we're watching, and we mean business. And we need to know these elected officials. Either you start doing things that need to be done, or you're out. We're going to vote you out. Okay? We expect things from you. You don't sit back and take too much from these. I know. It's so sad. But hey, don't jump off, okay? Slam the gavels with podcasts, help the public understand what really goes on in these family courtrooms. I am your host, Marianne Petrie, author of Dismantling Family Court Corruption, Why Taking the Kids Was Not Enough, and Cry Out for Justice, Poems of Truth, and Raised by These Wolves, How Family and Federal Courts Are Failing Our Children. You can find me on Spotify, YouTube, Apple iTunes, Anchor FM, iHeartRadio, and other platforms I don't know about. And feel free to buy me a coffee to help keep this podcast going. Thank you so much, Brian Vukodinovich. You'll be back. Thanks, Marianne. Thanks for the invite back, and I'm happy to come back on anytime you like. You have a great show. You're one of the best out there, for sure. Thank you, and happy Valentine's Day to everybody. Absolutely.