is extremely reasonable to allow access. i think we can impose the hours. good i think what is provided in the permit holders brief, those are my comments, so i would be willing to adjust the hours from 7:00 until 5:00 the 30 answer a decline of 30 -- 5:00 30 and -- 5:30 and 8:30 on saturday. >> the you have an end time on saturday? >> i

reasonable doubt lives here. these individuals. it is with those individuals. it is everywhere. you can't trust this evidence. you can't. >> that's casey anthony's defense attorney, jose baez, trying to raise questions and reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors. i want to welcome you back to the special report on the casey anthony murder trial. our panel is still with us. holly hughes is with us in atlanta. drew, to you. reasonable doubt lives here. that's what resonated when you think about jose baez and his arguments today. i want to know, what happened to chloroform? all of a sudden chloroform gave way to duct tape now. >> throughout this case the prosecution has been inferring both of them could have been the murder weapon, saying it could have been the duct tape. talking a lot about the searches and the high levels of chloroform were high in that car but today they honed in on the duct tape as the murder weapon. the first piece over the how that, the third piece over the nose. the third piece to plug it up

whenever the words reasonable doubt are used you must consider the following, a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. on the other hand, if after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence there is not an abiding conviction of guilt or if having a conviction it is one which is not stable but one which waivers and vacillates then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. it is to the evidence introduced in this trial into it alone that you are to look for that proof. a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence conflict in evidence or lack of evidence. if you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. if you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. it is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. you should use your common sense in de

i had no reason to. no reason to connect wallace with phone hacking. i had no reason -- nothing came to my attention. i have no knowledge of this inquiry and i had been given assurances by a senior constable of nothing new. i had no reason to disclose a minor contract that was very part-time, someone giving me a case of advice. when he did -- or at least became a name all are was saying in my resignation speech was it seems to be sensible not to impugn the character of the prime minister but to consider is it right to allow anyone to ask any questions because i kept giving him operational information that someone could suggest because of his relationship -- that somehow that could open up some -- this is very relevant. my understanding is it was exactly the advice of a senior official so we don't compromise the prime minister. >> we might respond to that later. it is a very sensible position that senior official -- we should not compromise the prime minister. it seems entirely sensible. >> did you not tell the mayor on that occasion before mr. green wa

whenever the words reasonable doubt are used you must consider the following: a reasonable doubt is not amir possible doubt, a speculative imaginary or forced doubt. such a doubt does not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. on the other hand, if after carefully considering, compari comparing, and weighing all the evidence there is not an abiding conviction of guilt or if having a conviction it is one which is not stable, but one which waivers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. it is to the evidence introduced in this trial and to it alone that you are to look for that proof. a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or lack of evidence. if you have a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty. if you have no reasonable doubt you should find the defendant guilty. it is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. you shod use your common

i think the reason -- i think it is going to be a reasonable doubt question. >> sean: make the case forstart with the lies, you are right there that doesn't prove her guiltive murder. start with a baby phone duct taped in a swamp. -- baby found duct tape in a swamp. murder. you look at the mom. you go to her car in her car you have a hair they've proven is hers, based on dna that came back to the family. it does back to everyone else. >> sean: it is a family car. >> it is postmortem, it was after death. you have every way to prove decomposition. cadaver dogs that said it smelled like death. >> sean: you had seven other people give you testimony -- >> you only had one person for 31 days knows that child gone and doesn't support it. >> junk science and incredible witness in terms of mr. anthony. incredible witness that the jury chose to disregard, based on this issue with regard to the mistress. and based on the statement about an accident that snowballed out of control. this jury had more than enough -- [ talking over each other ] >> sean: >> do i think there's involvement here -- for th

it, there has to be some reason to remove it. >> how about this giant lean, is that a reason to be concerned? >> it is a reason to be concerned not to remove it. if we were seing this sidewalk coming up, on this side, again, then we would be a little concerned that the lean is increasing and it is lifting the sidewalk and at that point we might say, you know, it is not really safe, you can't repair the sidewalk, the tree will have to come out. the lean of the tree is not in the path of travel for pedestrians and not over the street. it is not a huge problem in terms of, of the access that we need. and that would be another reason why a tree might come out. if we had this level of lean over the street, we wouldn't have access for vehicles and it might have to be removed for that reason. part of the challenge with this is young tree care can make all the difference. and it is a little guy that we can give you, and you can pick up the plantings, that talks about how to prune a young tree. pruning that you can do, in the first five, five to seven years of a tree's life can set it up to be a grea

need another reason to call?out the same as an innerspring but lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep better or find relief for your bad back, call now. call the number on your screen for your free information kit with dvd, brochure and price list. call right now and you'll also receive a $50 savings card just for inquiring about the sleep number bed. ask about our risk-free 30-night in-home trial. call now for your free information kit and a free $50 savings card. call now! ♪ [ male announcer ] what is the future of fuel? the debate is over. ♪ lexus hybrid drive technogy is designed to optimize any fuel source on the planet. even those we don't use yet. because when you pursue perfection, you don't just engineer a future-proof hybrid system. you engineer amazing. ♪ ♪ i like your messy hair ♪ i like the clothes you wear ♪ i like the way you sing ♪ and when you dance with me ♪ you always make me smile [ male announcer ] we believe you're at your best when you can relax and be yourself. and at thousands of ne

there was no reason for ashton to say everything he said. he also tossed a bone to the defense by saying kronk is a liar. that means he said something different yesterday than he said today. that's going to confuse the jury completely. also the jury's ready to go. they are ready to deliberate. they figured we're done. we spent eight or nine hours yesterday. they figured ashton would get up 15 minutes maybe and it's been an hour. we still have to hear from linda drane burdick. they think when is this going to end? ashton should have got up, 15 minutes, hit the three key points, sit down. end with a bang. hopefully linda is going to do that. i'm hoping she's going to do the mother thing and pull heart strings. if she drones on for an hour again, the defense is going to get a better verdict than i would have anticipated. >> what can you tell us about her, her style as a lawyer? what would you expect waysed on past experience? >> with linda, i hope, i do think she's going to be short and pull at the emotion and she will say, because she's a fema

each of us has a duty to act reasonably towards others.that duty without any conscious intent to harm, that violence is negligence. but culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care towards others. in order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. culpable flag rans is showing reckless disregard of human life or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effect or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of the conscious indifference to the consequences or which shows a wantonness or recklessness or grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. negligent act or mission must have been committed with other disregard for the safety of others. culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known or reasonably should have known was likely to cause death or great bodily harm. if you find the defend

every reasonable doubt.the state of florida fails in that burden of proof as to any element of the offenses then you are required, like it or not, emotional or not, it is your sell emsworn duty, you are required to find the defendant in the case to be not guilty for every charge in this case. only if it can be said in your intellectual honesty, that the state has proven the elements beyond a reasonable doubt may you find the defendant guilty. so with every issue raised, burden, no burden, reasonable doubt, that will help you get through it. the court will tell you that it is your job to weigh the evidence. not the sparring between the lawyers. and whatever else, you, the jury, are the ones who weigh the evidence and decide what evidence is reliable, that evidence you find skeptical, what evidence you don't trust. it is out of the lawyers' hands. this is for you to decide. and the court is going to give you some guidance. we don't look at someone and say, well i look year looks, or that guy is too old, or he

is extremely reasonable to allow access. i think we can impose the hours. good i think what is provided in the permit holders brief, those are my comments, so i would be willing to adjust the hours from 7:00 until 5:00 the 30 answer a decline of 30 -- 5:00 30 and -- 5:30 and 8:30 on saturday. >> the you have an end time on saturday? >> i have one last question. i would just say it is a later start time. >> in terms of the department's position, and issuance of addendum one allows the work to proceed on what ever is covered. is the work aloud if the permit is under appeal? >> it would not be allowed. i was wrong there are a two addendums. we are still waiting for the mechanical addendum. >> thank you. >> i want to learn there would be a permit required as well. >> i cannot remember if i made a motion. >> you made a motion, but it has been changed. you originally made a motion to deny the appeal, but you will need to make and a m motion that would change them. >> do i need to states that? >> it is understood that your motion w

i think the reasonable doubt instruction is an elusive, elastic concept and it turns into a reason to doubt. every defense attorney in the world, no matter how good or bad, can give a jury a reason to doubt. oh, she was -- well, that's her father. i haven't proven it, but i've just given you reason to doubt. that suddenly turns into a reasonable doubt. the distinction between a reason to doubt and a reasonable doubt is completely lost and the jury, i think, then winds up acquitting even though a case has been proven, which i think this one was. >> i think that's a good point. if i could just say for the cameras, my issue was when i saw these queues of people fighting to get into the courtroom every day and sort of clutching their tickets like willie wonka had let them into a chocolate factory, i found that disturbing. that means that a serious murder trial had become a form of macabre entertainment, and that's my issue with that. thank you all. >> -- cameras. >> well, yeah, i mean, what would your argument be? very quickly. why do you need them? >> very quickly, we don't have star cha

>> i think it has been reasonable. they have tried to follow the guidelines that have been established for them. i think the way the process is set up, which was to denied any access to political information and to relegate to happenstance, you might say, the objectives of partisan fairness and competitiveness. that is not how i would have designed the process, but that is the process that they were given. and i think they have tried to follow the criteria set out for the. from what i can see, they have done a serviceable job of that. there are some questions, i think, about the division of latino communities. there are also some things to try to do to create new opportunities for asian americans that have sport -- that historically have been relatively and incorporated in the california political process. i respect the work that they have done. supervisor kim: any other questions? just a quick question. how long have you lived in san francisco? >> since 2005. supervisor kim: since 2005. ok. no other questions. >> than

for three reasons. number one, the evidence didn't support a murder charge i am or the manslaughter charge. for me --. or the manslaughter charge. for me it wind there. . secondly, they didn't prove motive. why would a good mother who loved her daughter would all of a sudden juan day kill her? they tried to show motive at the end that -- that casey was a party girl. i didn't buy that because she had a good support system with her mom and dad willing to watch caylee. and the grandparents loved caylee. and the third thing is, no one could show how caylee died thatch was a huge factor of why -- died. i think that was a huge factor. for those reasons i agree with my fellow jurors. >> reporter: you mentioned the anthonys and their -- did you not find this is a highly dysfunctional family? >> i want to be careful, i don't want to get myself in trouble. i definitely felt they were dysfunctional. what degree that was, i don't know. you could tell that there is something definitely wrong within this family unit.

reason four is the city itself.want a break from the music and the jet set, you can wander down the hill to the new palace and the gardens. despite its history and natural beauty, the question remains why wagner chose here. >> it was ideal for him. a royal city. it was in the heart of bavaria and above all it was a small town that was not pompous. >> and so, bayreuth decided to have his opera house here, linking his legacy forever to the city. >> he was a good citizen of bayreuth. he held regular social meetings and respected the city's athletes. he wrote a column for the police and treated them to a meal. he was a very popular citizen. -- he wrote a poem for the police. >> in many ways, bayreuth is bothered. he is mentioned almost everywhere here. local residents know just how indebted they are to him. but one thing mike discourage possible visitors -- it is almost impossible to get tickets on short notice. the events are usually sold out, with a few rare exceptions. >> there were a few. i cannot remember them pers

any reason why? >> i think i've should the clarifications and commissioner was the fact that what had happened and the editor of the scottish news that the world had made a comment during the trial, which had been interpreted as you are saying now. but actually the international explanation was actually a problem with our suppliers in india. there was no such retrieval. >> were there any contacts during this? >> i think andy was on downing street during the shared in case. [inaudible] >> i said i wouldn't have had contact. it would have been mainly to do with were, by e-mail or by phone. >> just a couple more questions. why would it a legal fees during the shared in case? >> as i understand, i know james murdoch addresses. when amd coulson last "the news of the world," on matters related to the legal fees are paid and i think the same for clive goodman. i think it was when she was a co-dependent in these cases. >> okay, are you aware of any payment they haven't brought forth? >> note. no. >> thank yo

those are some of the reasons. this is a good question. there is no science behind the one year. >> i had the same question about the one-year limit. i guess after the first year, if the state decides to increase the sales tax by 1%, then we will still have to pay a half% -- pay half of a percent. >> if this date increases the sales tax, hours remain intact. to the extent that the commission is concerned about that, i am happy to bring the feedback to the mayor. the other issue is that i think that we have some more certainty about this within the next year. the legislature, some of democrats in the legislature have after their inability to get the tax extensions approved or at least before the voters for a vote have suggested that they might push to put the tax extensions on the november 12th ballot. to the extent that we are going to see a ballot measure, this is likely to happen. that was still be within the time horizon that we have included in this legislation. i certainly hear your concern and understand it and i would be more than h

there's a final reason why we're here, and it's, quite frankly, one of the primary reasons why healthy san francisco was passed. we are here to protect the san francisco taxpayer. something happens to that employee who is not provided healthcare or access to healthcare. that person, that individual who is working hard, somehow their health needs have to be addressed and what ends up happening is that if those needs are not addressed by the employer as the law requires, those needsville to be addressed by the city and county of san francisco. that means they will have to be met by the san francisco text pair. that's one of the main reasons why healthy san francisco was enacted and passed because we want to make sure that burden is not unduly placed on the taxpayer here in san francisco. that's why this is also a pro taxpayer piece of legislation that has the very modest effect of simply having the original intent of the law followed. that's why we're here. so, i can go on and on and on about this legislation, i want to end my presentation here. we have a couple of other folks here to pr

>> for so many reasons.deed enticed by the courtroom culture and we like the unknown, we like the family drama playing out, the dysfunction, the interpersonal aspects of this. at the core of this is a little girl. add to that the fact that the very foundation of life, the relationship with a child and mother, is what's being called into question here. so naturally it captures our imagination. >> i said i was closing, but you raised something and i want to sneak in one more. you've observed a lot of cases and dealt with people. does she disappear or do we hear from her? does she decide she wants to tell her story. >> this is the most disturbing part of this entire case. she's going to be seen, heard from, and probably will capitalize on this experience, and that is where things really go off the rail for me. that's a very sad and i'm sorry to say probable reality. >> dr. drew pinsky, appreciate your insights. thank you. still to come, major new developments in another courtroom drama that has captured global

what's wrong with it, and how do you kind of revive it, and so that's reason tv.e put out anywhere from about 300 to 400 videos a year. they are on view at reason.tv or youtube channel as well as reason.com. >> what kind of money does this foundation reason.tv and the magazine, spend a year? >> the overall budget for the reason foundation which is a 501-c nonprofit, is about $7 million or $8 million a year, and i'd say about a third of that. we have a think tank like a policy shop, the tv and the magazine are kind of the three main operational branches, and then a kind of administrative set, and i'd say they each pull about a third of that. >> were you ever a member of a political party? >> no, no. >> do you ever think you would vote always a certain way? >> no. when i vote in elections, i always vote on local bond issues and things like that, because that's where i think my vote is most relevant and also both in terms of -- this is a policy that is going to directly affect me if my hometown decides to raise taxes to build a new and, in my opinion, completely unne

it's reasonable doubt. reasonable doubt, in trying cases over 24 years, you know, reasonable doubt is a hard concept. i think jurors believe that the case has to be proven 100% beyond all doubt. the only time you never have a doubt in this case is if you were present, if you were there, and they're not. it's reasonable doubt. >> it seems to my, robin, that the american public, many of whom have watched every second of this trial. people have been obsessive about it, but i haven't met anybody who doesn't think that she was responsible for the death of her daughter. what nobody is sure about is exactly how caylee died. everybody seems unanimous that casey anthony was responsible for the death of her child. and i can keep coming back to some extraordinary facts. i mean, the fact that a mother doesn't report her child missing for 31 days? i mean, that alone to me is appalling negligence and incredibly suspicious. >> absolutely. and the evidence with each lie, which they convicted her of the evidence of lying, s

for no reason. a world where a man who buries his pets will take the granddaughter who was the love of his life and throw her in a swamp. this is the world that the defense invites you to occupy. . verizon claims its 4lt is twice afast as at&t. we're putting them to the test against the speed of a rescue unit. go ! they're downloading a music album. the first network to finish gets rescued. does your phone know that we're racing ? done ! verizon's done ! i've got seven left ! the fastest network in america. verizon. built so you can rule the air. now powering the lg revolution. fiber one. almost tastes like one of jack's cereals. uh, forgot jack's ceal. [ jack ] wt's for breakfast? uh, try the number one! i've never heard of that. [ wife ] it's great. it's a sweet honey cereal, you'll lovet. yeah, this is pretty good. are you guys alright? yeah. [ male announcer ] half aays worth of fer. not that anyone has to know. fiber beyond recognition. fiber one. morning starts with arthritis pain... that's tw

and showed you that video for one reason and one reason only -- and you know what it is. dr. schulz testified to the same thing. but dr. schulz didn't have the same opinion as dr. garavaloio who said it was homicide. he had no opinion onither one. she jumped in because this was a high profile case. he was the first medical examiner board certified fully capable of handling this case but yet she is the big shot and she comes back in to town and takes over and because of her relationship with the media and law enforcement. that is it. the politics that the medical examiner -- at the medical examiner's office played out in this case and you got to see it with these two. we presented to you and we were fortunate enough to have one of the most experienced medical examiners in the country, dr. werner spitz. and dr. spitz did a full autopsy. they can say all they want. and if dr. spitz had not found anything that would have been a different story. but he did. he found actual physical evidence, physical proof that caylee's remains were not found and were not -- did not tee decompose

reasonable doubt. this is about the murder weapon on the guess of probabilities, could be -- how many times did you hear "could be," or "might be," or "would be," and in the opening statement, we heard "in all likelihood." the characterization that he made himself, "in all likelihood." well, that doesn't quite make it. let's talk about burden proof requires and what it means and how you can think about it. you may have other definitions. if you have if you go and listen to the best arguments and the evidence and you talk about things and discuss it you may have an abiding belief now or tomorrow or whatever, that, not guilty, that is esy. in the guilty. highly unlikely that she is guilty. okay. good. you may find that this is likely. or unlikely. possibly not. may not be. perhaps. all these can be things, well, you know, maybe she is in the, possibly not, maybe not, perhaps, perhaps she's guilty. also means perhaps she's not. suspected. you might suspect that she's guilty. that's not proving guilty beyo

a reason to doubt. that does not equate to reasonable doubt. a reason does not mean reasonable. get lost. reasonable doubt is an elastic concept. a jury that gets nervous about the importance of their verdict can translate one to another and take any reason to mean a reasonable doubt. i think it's what happened here. >> let me jump in here. tv time is short. one of the jurors in an interview made the statement, which is accurate, no doubt. look, we thought the prosecution had a powerful case, just not beyond a reasonable doubt. reference has been made where the choice is presented to the jury, guilty, not guilty or the third one, not proven. the scottish system, not proven. jeff, does that make sense to you? >> no. all our prisons are overcrowded. one thing every prisoner has in common is they were convicted under a standard of reasonable doubt or they pled guilty. the idea this is an unsurmountable mountain is silly. in certain cases the jury finds not guilty. 80% to 90% of cases end in conviction. i don't think it's a standard unfair to prosecution. sometimes the defense wins,

implicate his daughter in something for some reason. they then tell you when caylee does turn up missing and the police are searching, that george doesn't tell them about the gas can incident. if george is concocting a nefarious plan to implicate his daughter in this accident, then why doesn't he tell the police that first day? and cowan made great, great point of the fact that he didn't. if counsel is direct, then he would have. you know, he would have done it. why he wouldive the police a piece of evidence implicating himself as much as anybody else, sort of begs the issue. but any way, so we go on. the police take the item which at the time they have no idea has anything to do with anything. photograph it, then give it back to him. so at this point george anthony takes the can back and sticks it in the garage for four months. and doesn't do anything with it. doesn't try to connect it to the police, doesn't -- he just lets it sit there. and then in december, when the body is found, the police find the can with the duct tape in the gar

do we have reason to belief it was an accident or suicide?o evidence of that in this case, was there? >> only reason to believe it was the initial, in july after the first few weeks, where the boyfriend and cindy adams cam came out with the issue she might have drowned. the boyfriend said right off before the body was found that if she had drowned in the pool, because casey wasn't watching her properly, she may have panicked and got rid of the body. so, it would be an accidental death with a cover-up afterwards. all of which, guilty of something, but not of first degree murder. i agree that -- and the evidence, the autopsy evidence is just as consistent with that as it is with any type of criminal cause of death. >> judge jeanine: let me ask you doctor, do you think the fact that they alleged it was an accident, but offered absolutely no testimony from the defendant regarding that, is going to hurt the defendant in this case? >> sure, sure it will hurt the defendant. there were a number of things that were put forth in the opening statement t

reasonable. moreover, because it's based on certain costs for affecting particular electronic debit transactions, the standard ensures that sfees are proportional to those costs as required by the statute. these interchange fee standards would be effective on october 1st, 2011. the final rule also contains provisions that prohibit sir couple vengs or avags of the standards. the statute authorizes the board to allow for adjustment to an interchange fee to account for an issuer's costs in preventing fraud from vided complying with standards established by the board related to fraud prevention activities. the proposed rule did not include a specific adjustment to the amount of interchange fees for an issuer's fraud prevention costs. instead, the proposal requested about comment of two broad approaches to designing standards. the first focused on general fraud prevention activities and costs. the second focused on recouping costs of new or substantial improved fraud prevention technologies. although

a specific group for no reason i have a reason and so does anyone else who looks at the facts really quickly i don't have much time but someone else washington post blogger use this very quickly to say defense spending cuts should not be on the chopping block she said because of michelle that's right all of this was before you know we knew that this was a long norwegian that sort of thing do you think that the facts these days can kind of be used to support any kind of a political agenda people have i think they almost always are i think the scope of the reasons why the to be off the table and you know blow norwegians don't make the cut ok but that's a whole other subject we have to go but jim you know i love you and i had no hard feelings i just wanted to take it out on some of the facts still ahead here i don't operate the glimmer of hope when it comes to the reporting industry trying to punish people over music piracy and courting latino voters president obama thinks that the national council of the brazile but does obama's rhetoric match his record on issues important to the hisp

it really had to be the only reasonable solution, the only logically reasonable solution, that jurors their common sense at the door, is that kis casey anthony did this in a premeditated murder. i like this closing argument. >> if you take out the george anthony factor and the roy kronk factor as you suggested there, how much does that blow a hole into hoe sigh bias's defense and that which he may discuss. let's tell everyone the court has reconvened, going through setups and things like that. once they start testimony, we'll take you there live. how much of a problem does this pose of jose baez? >> i think it creates a major problem for him that he's going to have to try and address. i think that was jeff ashton's whole tactic, was to go ahead. he gets to go first. then he gets to go last. he can tie up anymore facts he wants to talk about at the end, but he wanted to blow up those arguments about other common sense rational scenarios that mr. baez is going to try to present and has been trying to present. i think jeff ashton did an excellent job. >> okay, dan. thank you for standing

i tell awe couple reasons why. i tell you another story lots of evidence in this case is under seal. photographs of caylee that was ceased in this case are so dam prejudicial because they are under seal. wonder what that means. i know what i think it means when i hear a young kid ends up dead and there's chloroform it sounds like a mob hit. child wrapped in a bag duct tape in a trunk. sounds like something from south boston from 20-years ago. chloroform is the cheap pimp sedative of choice. if you just think about who uses chloroform on children it's cheap pimps trying to make pictures with their kid, sedate them, chloroform by the way acts as a nice am necessary tick so the kids can't tell when they come out of this. does it have something to do with sex and porn? was she pimping her kid. there's a lot of stuff in this case that has to do with sex we haven't heard much about? why do i think she is been acquitted because this case is not about the truth. each side today was pointing a finger at the other they're ca

this thing is to be reconciled in terms of some reasonable accommodation. it has been suggested because he is going against you in another matter that he would be barred from speaking with you directly but you can wave that. then you can have this conversation not about your lawsuit or anything else but how you solve the problems before us and that is to get the work done that needs to be done to your unit as quickly as possible and some possible arrangement that could be made that you would find to be reasonable. >> i would be more probable if i could have a day or two. i don't think my attorney would be happy with me doing that. there has been too much mistrust. maybe -- i don't know what the answer is, a day, two days. >> you would have a minimum of two weeks. >> look, i have made it this far. >> thank you. you responded to the question. we can take it from here. >> we have not even decided that will happen. >> i don't know what we can solve by holding this permit up any further. i am inclined to uphold the permit and all of the work to proceed. >> i fee