[00:00:01] Speaker 00:

I've never dealt with you, Ms. Beto. This is the first time I'm meeting. So I don't think there's any reason for me to engage in any analysis under rule 211 with regard to disabling prejudice. So I think we're clear on that issue.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:

We're good, your honor.

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:

Excellent. I'm glad to hear that. With regard to Mr. Braidle, Mr. Braidle and I have known each other for years. more than 30 years. We tried cases against each other when he was with the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, at least a couple, probably more, I don't remember, but there were at least one significant case against each other. During the time that he was a member of the Defense Bar and I was a member of the Defense Bar, We handled cases, co-defendants, although cases went to trial, we certainly had a number of cases that in which we represented co-defendants, at least through the motion stage. Outside court, we had a cordial, friendly and cooperative relationship as members of the defense bar, but we did not socialize anywhere outside a legal setting. So, given our dealings, I'm certainly satisfied that I don't suffer from any disabling prejudice with regard to Mr. Bradle. With regard to Mr. Cosgrove, when he was just Judge Cosgrove, I did appear in front of him a number of times. I don't know how many times, but probably better than 25 or 30 times, I guess, as he sat in the various counties. I don't recall that he ever presided over trial that I did, but I know for certain that I did a number of motions to suppress and motions to dismiss with then Judge Cosgrove. There was nothing out of the ordinary relationship. It was purely a relationship between counsel and the judge at that time. We've never had any social contact except for in legal settings and they're extremely minimal. Given that I took the seat that Judge Cosgrove, then Judge Cosgrove vacated, we were never colleagues on the Superior Court and never had any interaction on that level. And as I said earlier, we've never had any social interaction outside a few minimal contexts in legal settings. So I'm fairly comfortable in reaching the conclusion that I suffer from no disabling prejudice due to past appearances before and certainly never did work with then Judge Cosgrove. With regard to the parties in the case, I've gone through the pleadings as much as I can. I've looked at the indictments. I've noted the names that seem to come up over and over. I'm familiar with none of these people. I've never met any of the civilians or interacted with them directly or indirectly who are involved in this case. As to members of law enforcement who are involved in the case, some of those names I have encountered, members of the state police, as well as members of the Boston police. I would add to that that any dealings I had with them would have been as a criminal defense attorney. Probably mostly seeking to undercut their credibility, but never had any personal dealings with them outside of courtroom. Certainly no social dealings with them. So I'm fairly comfortable in saying that I suffer from no disabling prejudice with regard to any of the parties who I've seen listed in the papers. The final issue, it is public knowledge that I grew up in Canton in the 60s and 70s and part of the 80s. I'm considerably older than all of the people involved in this case. So I didn't go to school with any of them, nor did any of the names, as I said, ring a bell for me. I lived in Canton, graduated from Canton High School in the early 80s. moved out for college lived there intermittently through college and law school and left there for the final time and I want to say 1990 to the best of my memory may have used as a mailing address after that as I cycle through some post college apartments but have not lived there. full-time since the early 80s and have not lived there at all since no later than 1990. I don't have any contact with the town in particular, nor do I have prejudice for or against any issues that might happen in that town, nor special knowledge thereof. So I'm comfortable in finding that I have no disabling prejudice as to my past associations in the sixties and seventies and early eighties, um, with the town of Cantly. So that being said, I'll go around the table and see if anybody has any problem with that beginning with the defense, any issue, um, at this point, uh, with regard to, uh, disabling prejudice under two 11.

[00:04:41] Speaker 03:

No, your honor. And, uh, I agree with everything you said, and I appreciate, uh, the comprehensive rundown of everything.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:

Attorney Crossgrow.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:

I thank you, Rhona, for your thorough summary. Your recollection of our personal associations exactly coincides with my own. Having listened to your explanation of your associations with Attorney Breidel and your knowledge or lack of knowledge of the witnesses that may be involved in this case. I have no objection to your owner sitting in this case.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:

Okay, excellent. Alright, so obviously I'm in Brockton. You guys are different places. I'll give you my schedule going forward. Going forward, I'm assigned to self-experient court. The first six months of the year, I'll be sitting in room 1008, which is a civil session. The second six months of the year, I'll be in room 808, which is a criminal session. I think at least for now, we'll work this out as we go forward, have a greater clarity as to how we're going to handle it. At least for now for the next set of motions which we need to get to, what we'll do is we'll do those in person in Suffolk Superior Court. What room that's going to be in, I don't know yet. The way Suffolk runs things, their civil clerks don't sit on criminal matters. There are two separate clerk's offices in Suffolk. They're very distinct in what they do. So either I'll bring the matter into 808 where there is a criminal clerk or will perhaps be specially assigned to another courtroom. Sometimes courtroom 1309 is used as overflows. I don't know where we're gonna be yet, but I can tell you that the next set of hearings will be in person in Suffolk Superior Court. So, let's move on down the agenda. I touch base with Judge Crump. Certainly in touch base with him on the substance of the motion before him, merely as to where he stands on the motion. Judge Krupp indicates to me that a decision is not immediate on that matter, but he does expect a decision. Sometime I would expect this month before he moves on to his next assignment. I'm not going to promise that, but that's what he's been able to give me in terms of the timeframe right now. So, assuming Well, let me just say this. If Judge Krupp denies attorney Cosgrove access to the Reed cell phone downloads, then we really don't have to do anything more with that. The issue is concluded. If Judge Krupp allows access to the cell phones, where does that take us next, attorney Cosgrove?

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:

Well, if he allows access to the cell phones, that would mean that essentially he's allowed my motion or allowed it in some modified form to set up a taint team. That means the taint team is going to have to go through the cell phones, examine. We'll have to go through a process with the read attorneys as to search terms and so forth that would exclude attorney-client privilege material. They're going to have to report back to the court. The court is going to then have to hear from the defense as to the findings of the Taint Team and then at that point the Commonwealth would get the information as approved by the court to go through it and assuming that it's relevant to Mr. Kearney's case, it would then be discoverable, discoverable here. I would anticipate, well, candidly, we have been waiting for the results of the team on Mr. Kearney's cell phone for the better part of three months now. So I would say that either we would enter into an agreement if the defense is amenable or if you're on orders that the Commonwealth forego the evidence of the the reed search in this case. It is after all a motion direct the search warrant is after all directed at finding evidence of a conspiracy case, but it would likely also produce evidence that might be relevant here as well. Or we would need to delay. Further proceedings here doesn't necessarily mean do nothing, but the case would be pushed back until discovery could be delivered to the defense and they could make such motions as they feel appropriate.

[00:09:53] Speaker 00:

Well, let me just ask you this. As I understand it, there's already been a download of the defendant's phone in this case, is that correct?

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:

There's been a download of two phones, which is in the Commonwealth's possession and which has been turned over to the defense. And there are other electronic devices which were seized as a result of the search. And that's what is subject to the ongoing tank team here.

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:

There's no conspiracy charges between Reed and Kearney in this case, correct? No. So presumably any evidence we have with regard to Kearney is going to come off his own phone, I take it.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:

Well, that's the situation now. I can't speak to what might be discovered in the process of the search. The conspiracy that's alleged in the search warrant is conspiracy to intimidate a witness. The charges against Mr. Kearney here include intimidation of a witness. So it could be relevant, although obviously No, if any conspiracy indictment resulted against Mr. Kearney, it could not be tried with the indictments here absent his consent.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:

Mr. Bradle, briefly, anything to add to that in terms of just what procedure it would have, the other way into the substance of that issue, we can deal with it if we need to. But procedurally, you think that's the way it would go?

[00:11:25] Speaker 03:

Judge, we are interested in dealing with the disqualification motion first. Attorney Better will file a very comprehensive motion to disqualify Mr. Cosgrove. He's being sued by...

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:

I'm going to come to that, Mr. Bradle. I just want to make sure we understand the impact of Judge Krupp's sharing.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:

If I may, and I don't want to merge the motions, I understand what the court is doing. But that disqualification motion also includes the investigation involving Ms. Reed's cell phones, because it is virtually the identical conduct and the identical facts that are from the 2023 indictments. And again, without merging too much of this now, there is a disqualification motion on the indictments before your honor now, as well as the investigation that Mr. Cosgrove is doing because the same witness who is at issue in the disqualification was a primary or one of the primary sources that led to the warrant to go after Ms. Reid's phones. So they are kind of, intertwined, and if Mr. Cosgrove is saying, as he seems to be suggesting, that he can't predict the future in the event that he were able to search the phones, but if evidence were to be discovered and lead to a conspiracy indictment against Mr. Carney, that implicates the disqualification issue. At this time, I'm unaware that Ms. Reed has joined that motion, so I don't want to speak for what her counsel would advise, but to the extent Mr. Carney is involved in anything to do with what we're calling the open investigation involving Ms. Reed's cell phones, we think that the disqualification as it relates to Mr. Carney needs to be dealt with in the first instance.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:

Well, I'll come to that. What I'm trying to figure out is if you agree with the timeline laid out by former Judge, Attorney Cosgrove regarding what would happen in terms of next steps. Did that all make sense to you?

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:

It did up until the point where.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:

I'm going to get to that. All right. Let's move on to the next issue. And I'll skip out of the order that I had my agenda. The disqualification. I don't know. And I'm not going to prejudge it. It seems a little bit overbroad to disqualify attorney Cosgrove from some other investigation. What I'm dealing with are the indictments that are before me. So to the extent that there's a motion to disqualify that's ripe, it would appear to be that it's on 23-3-13, not some future potential indictment. That may or may not ever come. And what Attorney Crossgrove choose to do this time outside the indictments before me, I'm going to leave to Attorney Crossgrove. But I do think we need to deal with that issue sooner rather than later. And it does not appear to me that we would have to wait for the Reed cell phone extraction before getting to that issue. Would you agree with that attorney Crossbrook?

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:

Yes.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:

All right. So how soon would we be ready to deal with the issue of disqualification?

[00:14:49] Speaker 03:

I just wanted to throw out some dates if I could. January 12, 13 or 15 is what we're proposing.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:

Okay. Is that worth for you attorney Cosgrove?

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:

No, I'm out of the country on all of those dates.

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:

Okay. Um, how does late now, Mr. Bradley, you've got some other business that's going to happen up in Essex County. You're scheduled for trial up there.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:

Uh, that's a February 9th, right? That's correct.

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:

Your honor, I could, um, Give me a moment.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:

Mr. Brattle, how soon before you become unavailable due to that trial?

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:

Judge, I'm pretty flexible. I really don't want to delay the disqualification too much. I mean, unless attorney Betterow has a different view, I'm thinking, can we do it a little sooner then?

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:

No, I want to wait till I get to something.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:

OK. Oh, I understand. Maybe is it should we do? Maybe the third week in January?

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:

That's fine. Let's pick a Friday, late January.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:

That's the 23rd.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:

Attorney Cosgrove.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:

I can do the 23rd.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:

Mr. Brattle.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:

Yes, thank you.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:

All right, so we're going to mark that up for January 23rd. I'll be in touch with regard to time and place. I need to talk to Suffolk to see where they can accommodate me. I'll know that, certainly by early January, what courtroom we're going to be in and what time. My inclination probably would be maybe a noon or a two o'clock hearing. I don't expect it. It's going to be non-evidentiary, I take it, correct?

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:

Correct. Initially, at least, yes.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:

That's the way I read it. So we could probably get it in an afternoon. So it'll be the noon or two o'clock that we'll deal with that matter. I in Suffolk on them. We'll call that 123 for now.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:

And I think your honor. If I live to see another motion after your decision on the motion to disqualify, the next logical motion to take up would be the defendants motion to dismiss the case.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:

That seems to be the right the right step to me as well. How does that sound to the parties?

[00:17:19] Speaker 02:

Yes, we wanted to bifurcate the disqualification from that. Absolutely.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:

I think that's the right choice. OK, so we want to get that on the calendar now. Do we want to wait till the disqualification is done?

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:

I think it makes sense to wait, but I'm at your honor's disposal.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:

We can wait, because I'm pretty flexible when I schedule things in Suffolk. OK, we'll wait on that issue. Between now and the 23rd, are there any discovery issues that I can assist the parties with?

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:

Yes. We have been receiving discovery. We got some, I think, that we're awaiting that was mailed out yesterday. And we continue to get discovery in drips and draps without, as far as we can tell, respectfully any rhyme or reason. Some of the filings, Your Honor, we'll also see from the past several weeks. We're finding what are clearly discoverable materials from third parties, whether they be witnesses or potential witnesses in the case, whether they be other third parties who have made freedom of information requests and they're getting actual documents that are directly related to this case. So we're just concerned about when does it end and when do we get with confidence, everything. In addition to that, I believe Mr. Cosgrove in his motion seeking extension of time in late October, whatever it was, I think it was October 24th, indicated in that motion that the former special prosecutor on the case, Mr. Mello had discovered or come into possession of things that he believed were quote unquote relevant. We're wondering what that is and when we anticipate receiving that. And finally, with particular emphasis on one important piece of evidence that was also contained in a filing from some time ago, One of the most important witnesses in the indictments, if not the most important witness testified in the grand jury alleged to a series of I believe threatening Facebook messages and family members receiving all kinds of nasty images and comments that she claimed originated from the client or someone else, that would seem to be clearly discoverable. That would seem to be something that clearly, if not in the Commonwealth's actual possession is, you know, coming from their star witness would be in their custody or control. And we haven't received that.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:

I don't know who you're talking about.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:

Jennifer McCabe.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:

OK, Mr. Cosgrove.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:

I will look into that as to Mr. Betterow's earlier point. The materials that I have just sent him, check is literally in the mail as of yesterday and it should be received no later than Monday, if the post office can be believed. does include materials that I received from Mr. Betterow, notably a grand jury exhibit that they recently complained that they, I'm sorry, received from Mr. Mello, not from Mr. Betterow, notably a grand jury exhibit that the defenses complained that they had never received that was not in my possession or in the possession of the state police and I finally managed to get it from Mr. Mello who had that particular exhibit. So they'll be receiving that and some other materials from Mr. Mello

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:

Okay. All right. Well, if there are particular issues that need to be addressed by the court, let me know. We can quickly zoom in and deal with it.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:

Judge, I think there are, and respectfully to Mr. Cosgrove, Mr. Mello seems to be the root of all of or a lot of these problems. And it seems to me what the Commonwealth can do is send somebody over to Mr. Mello's home or office and take custody of everything so we don't have to rely upon Mr. Mello to discover grand jury exhibits from 2023 and 2024, being disclosed at almost Christmas time in 2025. They have the ability and resources to do it. We're entitled to this material. Waiting on Mr. Mello to provide discovery that shows up periodically doesn't seem like the best way to do it, respectfully.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:

Well, I believe the details of how attorney Cosgrove complies with the rule 14 to attorney Cosgrove. Just let it be known that he has to comply with rule 14. If you don't, there can be sanctions and I'll leave it at that. I'm not inclined to micromanage how he, how he complies except to say comply. Um, and we'll leave the details to the parties who are responsible. Um, okay. Let's assume the disqualification goes away. Let's assume that the new motion to dismiss is unsuccessful. Let's talk about the two indictments. How do the parties feel about Joinder?

[00:22:57] Speaker 01:

I think it makes perfect sense.

[00:22:59] Speaker 00:

Mr. Brattle, Mr. Bedroff?

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:

It's a little premature for us, Judge. We're sort of baking the cake right now. And we'd appreciate it if you let us respond to that on our next date.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:

Fine. I just want to get started in sort of thinking about these things, because they are all the same folks. And it seems like this case, in terms of evidentiary, the acts themselves I don't want to speak for anybody, but they don't appear to be hotly contested. It's what they are is what the issue is. One says First Amendment, the other says witness intimidation. That's sort of my sense of what the evidence is. You can tell me I'm wrong about that.

[00:23:40] Speaker 03:

It's a very fair characterization, Your Honor. You know, there's a bit more to do on the newer indictment. We don't have grand jury minutes even yet.

[00:23:50] Speaker 00:

What I want to do is I want to push that case as quickly as I can through discovery. So if we're going to do these together, let's do them. Mr. Kearney, is that the correct pronunciation, by the way, Kearney, not Kearney? It's Kearney, Your Honor. Kearney, I apologize. So look, I imagine he wants to get in front of a jury of his peers and be done with this. So my goal is to move us along as quickly as we can without skipping any steps. So let's get that discovery done. Now, how long do you think if they're joined, is this case going to take? I'm not holding you to the time, but attorney Cosgrove, how long do you think it would take you to put your case together in front of a jury?

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:

Well, I expect that there will be, on behalf of the Commonwealth, a rather extensive list of prior or subsequent bad acts that I would wish to offer in evidence as well as the evidence of the acts for which Mr. Kearney is actually charged, and depending on how your honor rules on that motion would make a fairly substantial difference to the length of the trial. I would estimate offhand, we've got six or seven victims, a lot of videos to show, two weeks maybe.

[00:25:36] Speaker 03:

I think so, your honor.

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:

When do you folks think would be a good time to try it? Again, I'm not going to hold you to this. I just want to start sketching out in my mind when and how we're going to do this.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:

Judge, on the two week thing, are you saying full days or half days?

[00:25:55] Speaker 00:

I'll go full days.

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:

Okay. That'd be fair.

[00:26:03] Speaker 00:

Any thoughts on when we could do it? The only time I, let me just block this out. I'm supposed to do an asbestos trial in June. That's going to take just about a month. So June is going to be out completely for me. Um, so, you know, work in, in terms of our calendars, just sort of scratch that one off.

[00:26:29] Speaker 03:

Judge, it's a tough call in light of how much stuff we still have to do. It's a tough call. I mean, I could see this going, not going until the fall, mid fall. You know, there's just so many, this team stuff takes forever. We haven't even gotten any automatic discovery on the second case yet. We're still waiting for our grand jury minutes. There's a lot of extraordinary motion practice here. Disqualification, dismissal for extraordinary government misconduct. Discovery, as my brother said, is dribs and drabs. We have this prosecutor who's very ill, apparently, who's no longer on the case. He's been disqualified. Attorney Cosgrove's been disqualified from the 24 indictments, which have now been dismissed. There's just so much going on in this case. It's not your garden variety situation. And I think we really are, realistically, if you want to put a cap on it, I think the cap has to be you know, mid to late fall. Because we're just not going to get all this stuff done. It's been historically glacial pace.

[00:27:48] Speaker 00:

And I don't have a problem with that. Mr. Cosgrove, how does that fit with your timeline and your availability?

[00:27:59] Speaker 01:

Well, my availability is pretty open. As far as timeline goes, I don't associate myself with all of Mr. Bredel's comments. I agree with his bottom line. This is a complicated case in some respects with quite a bit yet to do and a lot of contingencies and obviously if your honor allows the motion to Disqualify me. It won't be my problem, but that will certainly have an effect on the timing of any trial.

[00:28:42] Speaker 00:

Let me just slow you down for one second. The disqualification, as I can tell, is only on the 23 case. Is that accurate?

[00:28:54] Speaker 01:

It is accurate, Your Honor, but if you disqualify me in the 23 case, it wouldn't make any sense as far as I'm concerned for me to try the one incident on the 25 case. I would respectfully ask the district attorney to relieve me of that responsibility.

[00:29:18] Speaker 00:

Well, let's not go there yet. Aspirationally, Let's shoot for late October. Does that make sense? Late October, early November?

[00:29:28] Speaker 01:

That's fine, Your Honor.

[00:29:30] Speaker 03:

I have a couple of murder cases. I'm not sure if that's going to... to get it done for me. I have a murder case the 5th. Could we go to November, you know, maybe November 9th, 16th, December 7th? Any of those?

[00:29:53] Speaker 00:

I can pretty much make those dates work. I object with Suffolk, but we have flexibility here, okay? So if that's what we're looking at, let's aim towards being ready. If it gets that far, aim towards being ready in mid-November.

[00:30:09] Speaker 03:

Do you want to grab like a mid-November final pretrial, maybe Tuesday, November 17th, just throwing something out, and then maybe a trial date like Tuesday, December 1st?

[00:30:23] Speaker 00:

Put a pencil in your own calendars for that time. I'm not going to set the date yet, because I need to confer with the clerk and aid away. I don't have access to that docket right now. But pencil yourself in for around that time. And we'll pick this up once we get through the motion to disqualify, which will be on the 23rd. But let's try to work our way towards that date. and get this thing in front of a jury and get it resolved one way or the other. Okay.

[00:30:59] Speaker 03:

What else can we? Good. Thank you. I think that's everything on your agenda. Your honor. I was, I was following along on your scheduling water.

[00:31:09] Speaker 00:

Anything else?

[00:31:11] Speaker 01:

I just have one minor issue that I'd like to raise. It's not a big one. For some reason, Your Honor, Judge Doolin entered an order that all filings in this case were to be paper copies. I'm not sure why he entered that order, but I do find sometimes that when we are close to a deadline, I am close to a deadline that taking a special run over to Norfolk Superior Court to deliver a paper copy is a lot less convenient than being able to do it electronically.

[00:31:57] Speaker 00:

And I would read Judge Dolan's order to be a paper copy has to be filed. If you're up against a deadline and you have to email it in so we have it to prepare, that's fine. But a paper copy is gonna have to be put in the file at some point. That's fine. If there's a deadline set.

[00:32:16] Speaker 01:

If that's your honor's interpretation, I can certainly comply with that.

[00:32:20] Speaker 00:

Attorney Brayden and Attorney Bediro and I have it.

[00:32:23] Speaker 03:

That'd be a big help. I agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:32:25] Speaker 00:

Thank you. But make sure a paper copy gets filed so that it... I'm not even sure that... Mr. Brayden, you can correct me because it's been a while since I sat in a criminal session in Suffolk. I don't think that Suffolk Clerk's Office takes electronic files, do they?

[00:32:40] Speaker 03:

No, they don't, Your Honor. Norfolk does, Suffolk doesn't.

[00:32:45] Speaker 00:

All right. So right now, this is a Norfolk docket. So you're going to continue to file there. But you know, if you file electronically to the parties circulating the documents that way, that's fine. Appreciate it. Thank you. If it's a day late, it's a day late. You don't need to drive to Norfolk to get the paper filed that day. As long as it's electronically filed, followed by a paper file, that's fine. Thank you. All right. Anything else we can do today?

[00:33:16] Speaker 01:

Not for the Commonwealth. Thank you very much, Your Honor, for your time.

[00:33:19] Speaker 00:

Let me ask you one more question before we go. Are all the papers that I need for the disqualification motion filed?

[00:33:29] Speaker 02:

No, Your Honor. Just a couple of hours ago, Mr. Cosgrove, I think, filed a response that, frankly, we had anticipated earlier, but we filed something addressing that yesterday. which I don't know if the court has seen or not. And Mr. Cosgrove filed something today. We've perused it. I believe I'm gonna wanna file just a brief reply in the next 10 days or so.

[00:33:55] Speaker 00:

Brief, brief reply.

[00:33:57] Speaker 02:

We have lots of- I'll do my best.

[00:33:59] Speaker 01:

I may have an additional filing as well, but it'll be well within the 10 days that Mr. Betterow speaks of.

[00:34:08] Speaker 00:

I know that the civil rules have already been brought into play here in the pleadings here that they don't apply, but there is that motion reply, sir reply, sir reply, and that's it. You can follow what you need to follow. Yes. It's got to end at some point. All right. So if I would need to file, I want everything filed 10 days prior to the hearing. Okay. So no, no fines will be accepted on, on the disqualification issue, unless there's new evidence after one 13, let's get this thing squared up and ready to be decided that day or argue that they decided shortly thereafter.

[00:34:48] Speaker 02:

Yes.

[00:34:50] Speaker 00:

All right. Anything else we can do. It's good. You are. Thank you. All right, as soon as I get to Suffolk and I have a better idea where we're going to sit, I will give you folks notice as to the actual time of the hearing and the courtroom in which we'll be. That'll be an in-person hearing. Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:35:13] Speaker 02:

Thank you.

[00:35:14] Speaker 00:

Mr. Bedard, are you intending to be there in person?

[00:35:16] Speaker 02:

I will, yes.

[00:35:17] Speaker 00:

Excellent, because Zoom is a little difficult when some people are, hybrids are difficult. Yes. Okay, that's all we have today. Thank you very much. Margaret, you can close it up. Thank you. Thank you.