ms. corkran: yes. ms. corkran: yes. justice kagan: what do you think, ms. corkran, of this ea that oregon's necessity defense essentially functions as a eighth amendment in this coext, so we don't have to constitutionalize the kindof limits that you're talking about? ms. corkran: yeah, i would say it's not at a car that that's true. as mr. kedr pointed out, you know, there is a necessity defense in oregon law, but, so far, the oregon courts have not applied it to thisirmstance. it also wouldn't necessarily be available for thfis, the citations, we have here. but i think that this question about the availabilityf e necessity defense really goes to the injunctive posture of the case. it's not going to come up if you're in the -- you know, you're -- if you're presenting the eighth amendment as an affirmative defense at the same time as a ceity defense in a criminal prosecution, right, it kind of moots out the eighth amenenclaim. but going to justice barrett's questions about injunctive relief, there, the question u're asking is, does the plaintiff have a credi