Thank you.
I guess where you and I part company on this issue is on the necessity of a judge reading something that ideally would be provided in plain language to them and that would say: “This is what we're doing, this is why we're doing it, and I swear or affirm these are the facts.” In the analysis you just provided, Mr. Arbour, where you talk about the checks and balances, those are all after the fact. What I'm looking at is something that occurs before the fact. I know that you take no position. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth as to the position you're taking. I'm simply commenting on what you've just advised.
We may be at a standstill at this point. I'll let others intervene.
Thank you.