Law&Crime Sidebar - ‘Creepy’ Deputy Faked Investigation to Stalk Influencer: Lawsuit

Episode Date: September 28, 2025

Fitness influencer Briana Ortega claims a Riverside County Sheriff's deputy stalked her for months, abusing his position and using department resources to access her personal information. Now she’s filed a lawsuit against the county, former deputy Eric Piscatella, and some of his co-workers who allegedly knew what he was up to. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the most shocking allegations from the complaint with trial attorney Adante Pointer.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Grow your own audience today – go to https://www.opus.pro/sidebar for 1 week free plus 50% off the 3 months of Opus Pro. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. A fitness influencer with thousands of followers on platforms like Instagram and TikTok is revealing shilling details about a man who she says stalked her for months. That man, she claims, was a Riverside County sheriff's deputy. And a new lawsuit filed in federal court accuses him of abusing his position and accuses the county of letting him get away with it for far too long. We're digging into the wildest details from this complaint

with trial attorney Adonte Pointer. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. 29-year-old mom of two, Brianna Ortega, has filed a lawsuit against Riverside County, California, and several of its current and former law enforcement members accusing them of violating her civil rights. According to Ortega,

she met one of the county's deputies at a family festival in the Coachella area, when he gave her young son some stickers, right? But what should have been a passing interaction, that soon turned into scary stalking behavior according to this new complaint. This is behavior that would eventually lead to a deputy losing his job and being convicted of multiple crimes. Now, I'm going to go through this lawsuit. I'm going to go through the response from the county.

I'm not going to do it by myself. I want to bring in trial attorney Adante Pointer, who actually files these kinds of lawsuits. So it's a great guest to have. We love having Adonte on. Adonte, it's great to see you. I will just start here. I think it's really disheartening when we hear about law enforcement officers who's supposed to enforce the law, breaking it instead.

I mean, what kind of impact, big picture, what kind of impact does that have on our justice system when it comes to trust within a community? This type of behavior undermines the credibility of the police and the community and the trust that the community is frankly by law and therefore mandates. and required to place in law enforcement to protect, to serve, and to uphold the law. So this is the type of thing that makes people very suspicious of law enforcement when the very business of law enforcement is built upon the trust of people in terms of being able to call and rely upon them to do their job and to enforce the law. Okay, so let's take a closer look at the lawsuit, which was filed at the end of August in the U.S. District Court for Central California, okay?

Brianna Ortega is the sole plaintiff, the only person suing. The defendants are the County of Riverside, Eric Piscatella, the deputy at the center of this ongoing stalking scandal, the sheriff, and current Republican candidate for Governor Chad Bianco, a second deputy named Martinez Moreno and as yet unidentified defendants named Doe 1 and 2. So Piscitella, according to the San Bernardino's son, worked for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for five years from March 2019. to October 2024. He was reportedly assigned to court services and patrol in thermal. This is an unincorporated area that's part of Southern California's Coachella Valley. Okay, so now you have the background to get the context. Now, we're going to get into the criminal case against Piscitell as well. But as we go through the filing, it is important to know that the now former deputy did plead

guilty to multiple counts of misusing his department computer access. Okay. So the complaint's introduction gives us an idea of the allegations. Quote, this civil rights action arises out of the predatory conduct of Eric Piscatella, a county Riverside sheriff's deputy, who while in the course and scope of his employment, repeatedly use law enforcement resources and databases to illegally access the personal information of the plaintiff to stalk her and pursue a romantic relationship with her. And Ortega claims that it all started almost exactly two years before she filed this lawsuit. Quote, on or about September 17, 2020. While in the course and scope of his employment, very important language there,

defendant Piscatella made contact with the plaintiff and her minor children while plaintiff was attending a festival in the city of Coachella. Through offering stickers to the plaintiff's minor children, defendant Piscotella created an opportunity to introduce himself to plaintiff and obtained her name, which he later used illegally to access her personal and private information. According to Ortega, the two did not exchange contact information, but her name was all Piscatella needed to find out more about her. Months after their brief initial contact. Hey, we're talking an influencer right now. Let me tell you something. If you're thinking about how to get content seen across a lot of different platforms, we hear at Sidebar,

we produce so many video clips a day and we use a platform called Opus Clip. This is an all-in-one AI editor that makes it easier and faster to cut, create, and upload videos across all social media platforms. Through the power of AI, Opus Clip automatically generates B-roll. It cleanses up audio and it reframes your videos for any platform. It is so easy to start using. Let me show you how right now. All you got to do is go to opus.com pro slash sidebar, sign up, you upload a video, and in just a few minutes, you will have tons of perfectly edited clips ready to go. So whether you're making videos for TikTok or shorts or Instagram Reels, Opus Clip is your one stop shop for getting your best content seen by more viewers across all these platforms with the press of

just one button. And if you're wondering, you know, how good these AI edited videos are from Opus Clip, just look at our content here at Long Crime. Our producers have used Opus to help us cut and share clips of some of our biggest trials, and we get them to you very fast. Look, at Sidebar, we know our listeners have a lot of opinions and ideas to share, and this is the most powerful tool there is to help you edit like a pro and grow your own audience. So give it a try for yourself. Go to opus.combeau slash sidebar to start creating your own videos today. Ortega told the LA Times that she'd forgotten all about this guy when he suddenly appeared in her life once again. The lawsuit reads, honor about January 25th,

2024, defendant Piscatella searched for Plaintiff Ortega using his RCSD patrol vehicles computer. Okay, Adante, let's stop right there. This is an apparent major violation, right? All sorts of industries that have access to personal information, hospitals, police department, schools. They can't use the systems to look up details about a person for their own use. I guess the only defense would be there was some sort of legitimate purpose, but that doesn't seem to fly. You're exactly right. Professionals in particular law enforcement are not allowed to use the access that they've gained by way of their position of trust for their own personal or period sexual interests. And so what you have here is you, and there are actual laws in the state of California, that is a felony for a police officer to access police databases for their own personal use.

And that's apparently what he did according to the lawsuit, as well as to the criminal charges, which he ultimately pled to. The key word there, by the way, is he did, right? Because according to Ortega, it wasn't just the actions of one bad apple. Quote, based on information and belief, defendant Deputy Martinez Moreno and Doze 1 to 2 were present when defendant Piscitella accessed the database and neither stopped or reported defendant Piscitella's illegal conduct. Dante, how would Ortega and her legal team go about proving that you have multiple wrongdoers here, that multiple coworkers saw what he? he was allegedly doing it in step-in? Yeah, they're essentially saying he aided, abetted, and or encouraged him to access these databases, knowing full well that he was doing so for his own personal gain and interest

and not for a professional or law enforcement purpose. And so officers have a duty to intervene and to report, but much like the moniker that's passed around in social or pop culture about no snitching, the same thing appeared, at least according to this lawsuit, to hell true and law. law enforcement, that law enforcement officers are loathe to turn each other in for violating policies, their training, or the law. So the complaint continues, quote, through this illegal search, Piscatella was able to obtain the home address of the plaintiff and other personal and private information, including

her cell phone number. Following ascertaining the plaintiff's address, Piscitella showed up at the plaintiff's residence in the city of Lekinta in his patrol vehicle without legal cause, armed and informed. full uniform, defendant Piscitella questioned the mother of the plaintiff regarding the location of her daughter. Based on information and belief, defendant deputy Martinez Moreno and Doe's one to two were present in the patrol car for this interaction and neither stopped or reported defendant Piscotella's illegal activity. The lawsuit says Ortega's mother was, quote, alarmed and concerned, but refused to tell Piscotella where her daughter worked. Okay,

Adante, this kind of situation, I think they're very keen to suggest. Piscuitel is armed in uniform, that level of pressure, that level of authority. A person might feel they have no choice that they have to tell an officer what they want to know. What are a person's rights when it comes to answering police questions? Well, you know, when an officer presents himself in uniform and armed with a gun, that is the police, that is the state, that is the government representative at that point in time. And so people oftentimes feel intimidated by such a presence. At the same time, you do have rights as a citizen, and you're not required to answer these officers' questions.

The only thing that you're required to do is provide identification to identify yourself. So you're well within your rights to not answer the question. And if you want to know how far your rights extend in that moment, you should be asking the officer, am I free to go or am I being detained? If you're not being detained, that means you're free to go and you can end the police interaction. However, once again, psychologically and emotionally, most people feel that they cannot leave or deny an officer's overtures or questions simply because that gun and that badge and that uniform is an awesome power and very much intimidating. So according to Ortega, after being unable to figure out where she worked, this is Piscitella's then starting to text her directly, even though, by the way, she'd never given her number, right? So Ortega says that she ended up responding, wanting to know where they'd met, and he said, at a festival in Coachella.

So the lawsuit says plaintiff Ortega did not recall giving defendant Piscitella her number, nor did she understand the nature of the text communication. Therefore, she did not continue the conversation. However, after her sister was a victim of a crime in February of 2024, the plaintiff reached out to defendant Piscotella seeking law enforcement assistance. Despite only asking for law enforcement assistance, defendant Piscuitter, shifted the conversation to pursue his romantic interest in the plaintiff and asked to take her out on a date. Plaintiff immediately ended the conversation and ultimately changed her phone number for unrelated reasons.

And that is when Ortega says things really started to ramp up in the spring of 2024. Quote, in the subsequent months, Deputy Piscotel's romantic interest in the plaintiff escalated to an obsession, leading him to routinely illegally search the plaintiff's private information on law enforcement databases, including on May 31, 2024, when it was determined, defendant Piscatella ran the license plate number of the plaintiff, while his patrol unit was determined to be in close proximity of plaintiff's residence. And again, she claims that other deputies were present, didn't stop Piscotella from using the information systems this way.

And if you can believe it, things, apparently, according to her, got even creepier. Quote, on July 2nd, 2024, defendant Piscotella conducted another search of plaintiff searching her license plate on the California law enforcement telecommunication system. Following this search, defendant Piscatella once again went to the residence of the plaintiff while armed and in full uniform entered the residence of the plaintiff without consent or legal cause, falsely claiming a black man with dreadlocks had jumped over her backyard fence, attempting to break into her residence. This July 2nd, 2024 encounter happened just three minutes after plaintiff returned home

from out of town, which caused the plaintiff to believe she was under the surveillance. of defendant Piscitella. Once inside the residence under false pretenses, defendant Piscatella immediately began to make romantic overtures towards the plaintiff, telling her how beautiful she was without makeup and asked for her new cell phone number because she had changed her previous number. Plaintiff was confused, scared, and uncomfortable and began recording part of this interaction with her phone. Okay, Adonte.

A lot of this case, by the way, is based on digital evidence, right? They can look at the search histories using these systems and how important is, you know, a recording like that? Very, very important. I mean, how bold and how creepy can this deputy be? You know, he's using his law enforcement database. He's using his uniform patrol car and his position of authority to hold himself out as if he's there to protect her when it appears that he's stalking her and his digital footprints.

And this is something that not just for law enforcement, but for everyone, your cell phone, your computer, your router number, all of these. different things, the apps you use, they're all tracking not only your location, but what you're looking at, who you're interacting with. And in this situation, it appears to be his undoing because it corroborates what she's saying as it relates to what his true intent was, but also undermines whatever claims he might have been making about the classic and unfortunately a very much worn out excuse of, hey, there was a black guy or someone that I'm protecting you from that's scary. And that's why I had to be in this position. When, in fact,

it was all just a made-up line. It was fake. Does it hurt her credibility that she maintained conversation with him that she asked for his help when it came to her sister? Does it hurt her at all that her case? I don't think so. You know, she's asking for help from a member or a person of law enforcement. Isn't that who you're supposed to help? That's who we're trained. That's who the law tells you to direct your request for help in terms of what she was looking for, finding her sister or protecting her sister. So I don't think that undermines our credibility. I think that underscores really the problem here, which is when you have a position of authority as a member of law enforcement, and then you use it for your own personal interests, and the person then

needs to use you or access law enforcement. There's a conflict because you're no longer serving a capacity as a professional police officer. Instead, you're looking to twist the two, your personal interest in the professional capacity and those two are incompatible. Let's go back to the lawsuit. It reads, quote, plaintiff ultimately provided her new phone number while under duress and only for the purpose of investigating the possible crime that had been committed at her home. Unfortunately, defendant Piscuitella once again started texting the plaintiff to further pursue his romantic interest, including stating he would steal plaintiff from her boyfriend. Plaintiff immediately asked defendant Piscotella to stop messaging her

as it was unrelated to any crime, and defendant Piscuitella's illegal conduct was reported to law enforcement. So, what is Ortega suing for? Well, the complaint lists six causes of action. Civil rights violations under specific federal statutes, municipal liability for civil rights violation, violation of civil rights for failure to train and supervise, violation of computer fraud and abuse act, violation of electronic communications privacy act, violation of civil rights under the Fourth Amendment. Adante, those causes of action kind of give us a good idea of why this lawsuit ended up in federal court instead of state court. Which one stands out to you? Well, you know, when you start looking at the access he had with the computer in terms of the

computer system and the databases, that jumps off the page. But also here, when you start looking at the federal civil rights, your privacy interests and the fact that those were violated by this particular deputy, and then you add a layer on top of that in that he will essentially, stalking her and not only did he gain access to that information, but how that access was utilized in order to stalk her and to find out our information. And so that's what it was going to be the centerpiece of this lawsuit, is his access and then what he used it for. And using the phrase, the course and scope of his employment is key, right? It's not just him off duty harassing her. Why is course and scope of his employment? Why is that phrase so important?

The course and scope of his employment is critical to the lawsuit because that's the tie-in, if you will, to take it from him being an individual person who's done something, perhaps on his off time, right, when he's not at work, not dressing uniform, doesn't have his police gun, but instead, you know, just on his personal time versus what is alleged here, which is that he actually did this while he was on, if you will, company time, while he was working as a sheriff's deputy. And therefore, that means his employer, not just him personally, but his employer, the county of Riverside, is now on the hook for any type of verdict or settlement that comes out of this lawsuit. So Ortego's legal team explains that their arguments for relief, alleging that the deputies under Sheriff Chad Bianco, they knew they could get away with conduct like this. That's what's making this lawsuit so more expansive, including these different players. It says, quote, on information and belief, defendants Piscatella acted as he did in part because he knew or was otherwise aware there was no enforced county RCSD policy in place to monitor

and or review his computer use and activity. As a result of established customs, norms, and procedures at RCSD, defendants Piscatella, Martinez Moreno, and those one and two believed that they would not be disciplined or punished for their conduct and their conduct would otherwise be ratified or condoned by the superiors as similar conduct had routinely gone unpunished and with offenders suffering no adverse or disciplinary consequences. Defending County was or should have been aware of RCSD deputies using the work computer system and other law enforcement databases to prey on vulnerable female citizens. However, despite this, the deplorable conditions still exist and led to the injuries

suffered by the plaintiff. And the lawsuit blasts Riverside County and the sheriff's office for allegedly having no policies that would keep these kinds of privacy violations from happening. And quote, defendant county acting through its administrators, management, supervisors, employees, and or agents on staff violated their duty to protect the private information of the plaintiff, thereby causing harm to the plaintiff. These failures include but is not limited to the following, failing to monitor, review deputy computer usage and access to law enforcement databases for the safety of citizens such as the plaintiff, failing to supervise and discipline staff properly when computer usage policies are violated, inadequate training of staff on appropriate computer usage. failing to enforce written policies which prohibits staff from using department-issued equipment and patrol vehicles to access private information and pursue romantic interests, inadequately training staff in behavior management, inadequately training staff on reporting inappropriate and or illegal peer conduct. And when it comes to the claim that Ortega's Fourth Amendment

rights were violated. The complaint reads, all defendants violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures by improperly allowing and or accessing her private and personal information contained in state and national databases without just cause. Furthermore, defendant Piscitella entered the home of the plaintiff without a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances in further violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Now, Adante, she makes an argument here. I completely understand it.

However, will it be tough to get everybody else on the hook? Will it be tough to say, hey, you look the other way, you didn't have the proper policies in place, you were condoning this, you allowed this to happen. Is it a stretch? What would she need to show here? Sure. Well, there's two parts, at least, to her argument that she'd need to be able to prove up. One of which is, as you mentioned, that there were people other than just this actual individual

deputy that were involved in creating the situation and or looking the other way and therefore encouraging and promoting the situation. And so she alleges in this lawsuit that deputies knew and or were standing by and were aware that he was unlawfully and illegally accessing the database? Who are those deputies? I think other deputy, other deputy was named, but you have other two, as to this point, unnamed deputies. Are they going to come forward and admit it? Maybe they already have in some other administrative review. And so that's why she feels comfortable saying that there were other deputies involved. The flip side of this, too, is that we start talking about other people and

the policies in the training not being adequate, not being sufficient enough to safeguard against this type of conduct, that's more objective. Either you have a policy, either you don't. Either you have training that instructs deputies that they're not supposed to do this. And if they do do this, there are consequences. Either you enforce that type of consequence or you have not. So that'll be much more apparent and obvious and objective for them to prove up. But the combination of the two is how you wind up also pointing liability at the county

of Riverside. Because if the sheriff's department has a culture, has a custom, has an informal policy of allowing this type of behavior to go forward because you don't have the training in place, you don't have the policies in place, you don't have the supervision in place, and ultimately you have no enforcement mechanism in place to safeguard people's data to keep women from being preyed upon by sheriff's deputy who access this information through their position of trust. That is a major issue for that employer, the county, and the county can be on the hook for the damages, i.e. any settlement or verdict that comes out of this case.

Now, Riverside County, they filed a response. They filed a legal answer in response to this complaint, which included pages and pages of denials. That's typical. I mean, an answer typically goes line by line or paragraph by paragraph in the original complaint and either, you know, agrees or disagrees with what's alleged. Sometimes they need more information to answer. But for example, answering paragraph 24, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief concerning the truth of the factual allegations contained therein. And on that basis, denies such allegations. Paragraph 24 further contains legal conclusions and argument as to which no response is required. And it goes on like that for more than a dozen pages before getting to what are known as affirmative defenses, which could be used to justify certain actions, right? The county's filing offers up 13 affirmative defense options. Now, we won't go through all of them, but they include failure to state a claim, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of limitations. Adante, talk to me about what those affirmative defenses mean and the filing also claims immunity from liability,

right? They're a police department. They're a government. Talk to us about what those affirmative defenses mean and also claims of immunity. They can't be, they can't be sure. I mean, to the viewers, it probably all sounds like legal mumbo, jumbo or gobbily goop. But for us who are in the legal system, we hear those defenses and what they've said. If you put them all into one pot, it would say, I'm not responsible, I didn't do anything wrong, or if I did something wrong, I have an immunity, meaning I'm protected or I have a shield to do what I did and you can't hold me responsible. Essentially, I have a free pass. And that's what's very frustrating to many people who find themselves in these positions and people who want to level

the playing field so that there's not a double standard for law enforcement and everyone else, because there are a host of immunities and legal protections that allow law enforcement to get away with things that you and I or anyone who's watching this would never be able to do. And so that's what the county and the defendant are setting out in their legal papers and their answer is a lot of things that sound like legal mumbo-jumbo, but ultimately could prove fatal to the lawsuit if they prevail on one or more of those defenses. Now, I mentioned earlier that Piscitella did in fact plead guilty to misconduct, okay, a crime. When Ortega made her complaint to the department, there was an internal investigation that was launched, and Piscatella resigned in October of 2024.

In December, he was charged with seven felony counts of using Sheriff's Department computer databases and networks to illegally obtain information. And in July of this year, he made an open plea to the court, according to the L.A. Times, asking the judge to downgrade his charges to misdemeanors. Now, the prosecution strenuously objected to this, but according to court transcripts, Superior Court Judge Hilliola J. Hernandez reportedly said nothing actually happened. He never like broke into the house or threatened her. Now, Dante, your thoughts on that? Response from the judge. To me, the judge really gave short shrift and minimized what's going on here. Keep in mind, this is not a citizen, a citizen. This is someone, a person of law enforcement who's given extraordinary powers to arrest and have access to different law enforcement databases, personal private information, and then use that

cloaked in his uniform and with a gun to show up to this woman's house unannounced with a fake fabricated story about him fighting crime when all he really wanted to do was getting her business and date her. And so for the, in my opinion, I've seen people sentenced and dealt with much harshly, much more harshly for a lot less. And so I think this is once again, the benefits are the privileges that are afforded to law enforcement, which in my opinion allows this type of behavior to continue as opposed to sending the type of message that should be sent here for this person, for this particular sheriff deputy and everyone else, that you are not allowed to stalk, harass, and essentially invade someone's privacy for your own personal gain without

their permission or consent. So let's talk about this. Let's talk about what happened. The judge accepted Piscitellas guilty plea to misdemeanor charges, sentenced him to just one year of probation. He has to perform 100 hours of community service through a nonprofit organization. He can't have any contact with Ortega. His attorneys filed an appeal in August. And despite filing report with the department and eventually filing this lawsuit, Ortega refused to testify against Piscatella. She told the L.A. Times that she was afraid of retaliation from him or the department. A spokeswoman for the district attorney's office told the outlet that since Ortega refused to testify, they weren't able to bring other charges against Piscitella like stalking. The San Bernardino

Sun reports that Piscotella's law enforcement certification has been temporarily suspended by the State Commission on Peace Officer standards and trainings. But you look at this, Adonte, what do you make of that? You know, this, there's a lot of different issues that are raised, by the way this ultimately played out. As it relates to Ms. Ortega and I wanted to testify, many people who are victims of domestic violence, stalking, and things like that, don't feel comfortable and are dissuaded from testifying because of the court process. So this is not something that's unfamiliar or uncommon. This happens all the time. What's also true is that district attorney's office and prosecutors will still prosecute a case without the alleged victim participating by showing up

and testifying. Why? Because they can use other statements and other evidence to prove the charges and therefore do not need the victim to be a witness at the trial. Apparently that's a discretionary decision and this prosecutor's office decided to abandon some of the charges. But this is why this remains to be a problem and why it's much more thorny when it's the member of law enforcement because it sends a message that you'll get a slap on the wrist it's just a speed bump it's not going to ruin your career it's not going to send you to jail and you'll get probation you'll get some fines and you may not be able to work as a law enforcement officer for a while and you shouldn't when you've betrayed the public trust but there's still light at the end of the tunnel and yeah you'll

get probation to go home and in a year's time this will go away Let me ask you that. Is there any avenue by which he can get a law enforcement job again? Well, he right now is suspended. In California, you have to essentially have a valid license to be a police officer. And so right now it's suspended, I imagine, while probation plays out until this case ends up. But once it finishes, it's something that he could petition to get his job back, a certification back, or it goes away because the regulatory authority says, you've paid your debt, that's society. and we're willing to trust you making life and death and liberty decisions on our behalf. What a case. Dante Pointer, thanks for coming on.

You know, really interesting civil and criminal case to talk about, kind of unbelievable, to say the least. But glad we're able to shed a light on it. We'll keep a careful eye on how this lawsuit progresses. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Take care. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us.

And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. Instagram or X. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll see you next time.