Law&Crime Sidebar - Kevin Hart’s Sex Tape BOMBSHELL Could Explode in Civil Trial

Episode Date: October 8, 2026

In an active Los Angeles lawsuit filed by Kevin Hart against his former personal assistant, Miesha Shakes, unexpected potential witnesses could take the stand. That includes Montia Sabbag, the woman involved in Hart's notorious 2017 Las Vegas sex tape incident. The trial centers on allegations of extortion and breach of contract following an interview Shakes gave to internet personality Latasha "Tasha K" Kebe, while Shakes defends herself pro se, raising claims regarding unfulfilled healthcare agreements and wage disputes. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber and litigator Rich Schoenstein break down the legal claims, defenses, and bombshell witness lists.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Taking care of your health just got easier – start here with Zocdoc: https://zocdoc.com/JESSE  #sponsoredHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Jay Cruz, Christina O'Shea, & Andrew ZuckermanScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & 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/lawandcrimeTwitter: 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.

I don't know if you've been following Kevin Hart's legal drama, but in a lawsuit against his former assistant, it is now being reported that the woman he allegedly had a sex tape with may be called to testify in this case. So we're going to break down the lawsuit, the claims of the defenses, and this news about who could potentially be a bombshell witness. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, I got some Kevin Hart legal drama.

And I'll be honest with you. I didn't even know this was going on. Then I see this headline, which I'm going to get into, and I go back, I look into this case, I look into the lawsuit, and now I'm like, we got to talk about it. So let me start with this. There is a woman who apparently appeared in a sex tape with the comedian and actor who may be called to testify in an ongoing lawsuit between him and his former assistant. Now, you might be saying, wait a second, what is going on here, right? Totally normal. That's what I thought.

That's what I want to get into. So, here's the history. Montia Sabagg sued Kevin Hart back in 2019 for millions and millions of dollars over allegations that he secretly filmed her having sex without her permission. Hart denied the claims, denied the allegations, and the case was ultimately thrown out. Reportedly, it was thrown out on procedural grounds, dismissed. Then, Hart filed a lawsuit against his former personal assistant, Misha Shakes. And in an amended complaint, Hart claims that while working for him, she was. was privy to all sorts of personal and confidential information about him, his family, his friends,

his businesses, and so forth. Now, the complaint claims that Shakes signed the confidentiality agreement in 2017, which would prohibit her from speaking about this kind of information, from disclosing it. You fast forward three years, so now 2020. The complaint claims that Shakes, Hart, and his businesses entered into a mutual release and non-disclosure agreement, and that Hart agreed to pay her $30,000 a year for three years. Seemingly, there was some sort of resignation. In a similar fashion, the agreement requires Shakes not to disclose private and confidential information about him, his family, and the related companies. Then you go to around November 2023, and this is where Hart claims that Shakes sat down for an interview with Latasha Transerina Keeby. And in that interview, this is, I'm going

to read verbatim from the complaint, quote, Shakes made various statements regarding heart, his family, and heartbeat personnel and or employees of other heart-affiliated entities. Notwithstanding the truth or falsity of any such statements, kind of defamatory language there, shakes would only have had knowledge regarding such subjects as a result of her employment with heart and heartbeat. Such information necessarily would have constituted confidential information as defined by the NDA, such as information regarding alleged personal relationships,

affecting the employment status of personnel at heart-affiliated companies, and subjects such as Hart's interoperated. with his family members. The interview also included false and defamatory statements regarding Hart and certain legal disputes in which he had been involved. During the interview, Keeby asked Shakes whether she was subject to any non-disclosure agreements, which would have prohibited her from disclosing the type of information that was the subject of the interview.

Shakes acknowledged that she and plaintiffs were, in fact, parties to the NDA. Then, this is in the complaint, Hart claims that someone called his representative to tell them about the interview, saying there were things that were said in that interview that would damage Hart's reputation. And that this person said Keeby would publish the interview unless Hart paid what is referred to in the complaint as a ransom of $250,000. Now, you go to November 17, 2023. The complaint claims that a teaser of this interview was published online, quote, this is from the complaint, wherein she, along with shakes, touted the supposedly salacious and damaging nature of the interview.

The teaser video clearly was intended as a threat to Hart that the more detailed interview would be published if the ransom was not paid. The teaser included a statement from Keeby at the 206 mark of the video specifically warning that, quote, when you don't pay, we have to get money by any means necessary. So from there, Hart claims that he and his team contacted the police, that they didn't pay the ransom. Then Hart's attorney, Dante Mills, who I know, I've interviewed him in the past many times, apparently wrote to Keeby in a cease and desist letter, telling Keeby not to publish the interview.

But in the end, according to Hart, it appears that Keeby did publish the interview, nonetheless, and allegedly charge viewers a monthly subscription fee. I got to be honest about something. We're going to jump back into this. I don't know about you, but I put off scheduling my doctor's appointments. I know I shouldn't, but like I don't want to deal with the phone calls, the voicemails, you know, the endless phone tag. And then when I finally call, the next opening is like somehow months away.

It always feels harder than it should. And that is why this episode is sponsored by Zoc Doc. So ZocDoc is a free app and website that lets you search and compare high quality in-network doctors. They show reviews from real patients and the detailed doctor profile. So you can compare options and choose the doctor that best fits your preferences. You know what's great about Zoc Doc? Is that you can see actual appointment openings and click the book without all the phone calls and back and forth. And look, you can make so many of your appointments right now through Zoc Doc.

And you don't have to make a single phone call, by the way. Your health matters. Taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. Find and book the right doctor with Zock Doc. Head on over to Zock.com slash Jesse. You get started. You check that appointment off your to-do list. That is Z-O-C-D-C dot com slash Jesse.

So what happens? Heart sues, shakes, Keeby, affiliated companies, this is out in Los Angeles. The causes of action originally include civil extortion, breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, invasion of privacy, defamation, suing for all sorts of damages, including compensatory damages, which are supposed to restore you as whole, punitive damages, there are a form of punishment damages. And it appears there was some back and forth regarding the status of this lawsuit, so either there were claims that were dismissed or the suit in its entirety was dismissed for procedural reasons.

But according to My News, L.A., and our review of the court records, it seems that Kevin Hart's lawsuit was reinstated and by all accounts appears to be active. In fact, on September 29, 2026, in this matter, the court held that the final status conference in this case was continued from September 29th to October 9th. That's tomorrow. And that the parties, had to meet and confer this past Tuesday, October 6th. And in a separate filing, it appears that tomorrow there is going to be a hearing in the court regarding a media request to photograph or record or broadcast seemingly the proceedings in this case. Now, I should also tell you that My News L.A. has reported that Hart settled his claims against Keeby

separately. So it appears that all that's left is his case against Shakes, which brings me to Shakes. Well, first, I found this on In Touch Weekly, which reports that in a sworn declaration, Shakes had reportedly claimed she didn't know about or maybe understand the terms of the NDA, reportedly saying, quote, at the time of signing the NDA, I was suffering from significant mental health issues and was under considerable financial distress due to my unemployment. Hart was fully aware of my ongoing health issues and critical need for health insurance and funds, as I could not afford health insurance or my prescribed medications.

Put that to the side. I also have this. So Misha Shakes appears to have filed an opening statement with the court, which appears to be what her opening statement would be to a jury. I say her, because it seems that she's representing herself in this. Now it says in part, quote, my name is Misha Shakes. I am the defendant in this case, and I am representing myself. The evidence will address the alleged agreement, the parties to that agreement, the circumstances surrounding it, the obligations the plaintiffs contend existed and whether the plaintiffs can establish that those obligations were breached. You will also hear evidence concerning my former employment, communications between the parties, and records relating to that employment. I ask that you pay close attention to the actual documents, the dates, the circumstances in which communications

occurred, and the testimony concerning those events. You will also hear evidence concerning defamation, that evidence will concern statements that the plaintiffs contend were made and the circumstances surrounding those statements. You'll be asked to consider what was actually said, who made the statement, the context in which it was made, and the evidence relating to whether the legal requirements for a defamation claim have been established. You will also hear evidence concerning invasion of privacy

and public disclosure of private facts. That portion of the case will involve evidence concerning information the plaintiffs contend was private and improperly disclosed. You'll be asked to consider the nature of the information, the circumstances surrounding any alleged disclosure, and whether the evidence satisfies the legal requirements the judge gives you for those claims. It goes on to say, my role during this trial

will be to present my evidence and defenses and to challenge the evidence offered against me where appropriate. At the conclusion of the evidence, the judge will give you instructions explaining the law that applies to the claims you must decide. You will then apply those instructions to the facts as you determine them from the evidence.

At that point, I will have an opportunity to explain in closing argument why I believe the evidence does not stand. the plaintiff's claims. But today is only the beginning of the trial. I'm asking you to keep an open mind, listen carefully to every witness, examine the admitted evidence, and wait until you have heard the entire case and receive the court's instructions before deciding any issue. This now brings me to the main topic of this episode, right? The witness list. This has been filed, again, seemingly from Ms. Shakes. And one of the potential witnesses listed

here includes the person I mentioned before, Montia Sabag. In that filing, Shakes, writes, quote, expected testimony. Matters within her personal knowledge concerning the September 2017 Las Vegas incident, the alleged recording of her private encounter, whether she knew of or consented to the recording, communication she personally received or participated in, the subsequent investigation and civil litigation, and matters contained in her sworn declaration to the extent admissible and permitted by the court. So this is the point where I bring in my good friend litigator Rich Schoenstein to try to make sense of everything that we're seeing. Rich, good to see you. for taking the time. We'll talk about all aspects of this, and I'm also interested if Keeby is called as a witness.

But I have to start with this idea of this woman who had made claims in the past that Kevin Hart secretly recorded her. She potentially being called as a witness here by Shakes. Why? What's the motivation there? Why would she want her to be a potential witness in this case? What do you think? Well, I think she wants to assassinate Kevin Hart's character by bringing on this woman who claims against him in the past and bringing all of that into the case. I think that's what she wants to do. The claim, as I read it, is that the explanation, I should say, is that he won't have any damages to, you know, like the defamation part of the case, because his character has been attacked in the past. He's been shown in the past to be a bad person. So they want to allude to this

prior event to show that. But I think it's just, it's pretty much just character assassinations. Or is it to try to validate whatever she had allegedly said in her interview about Kevin Hart? If she had referenced or made, you know, points about this, his alleged relationship with Sabag or this, this allegation of secretly recording, that would have been able to show, hey, I was telling the truth. If she did talk about that specifically on the podcast and wants to establish the truthfulness of that, then yes, I think that could be a justification for it. That would probably be the best justification for it, actually. By the way, is it typical to file a witness list like this, the way she did? So, courts do it a lot of different ways.

Usually before trial, the parties have to exchange lists of their witnesses in one fashion or another. Sometimes you file them in the court. Sometimes you just exchange them. I gather this was the procedure in the California court where this trial is happening. But you do exchange witness. The fact that this is now headlines, and you have to imagine Kevin Hart may want to take this fully to trial, but if this woman's a bag becomes a witness and the court allows her to testify, is that going to put more pressure on him to settle this? It could conceivably. One of the reasons you exchange a witness list is so the parties can bring to bear any arguments they have about whether these witnesses should testify. So presumably, Kevin Hart's counsel can make an objection and say, this is too far removed, it's too prejudicial. It doesn't really have anything to do with this dispute.

She shouldn't be able to call this witness, and that can be confronted by the judge prior to the trial beginning. Now, I want to go into this other aspect of it. I mentioned this before. It appears from our research into this that his claims against the podcast host, who has been, I believe, referred to as Tasha K., Ms. K., those have been settled. Let's assume for a moment there was a settlement. It's done. She's on the witness list too.

She's on Sheikh's witness list. How does that work? Can you call, who was originally your co-defendant, in a litigation, but then her claims were settled, privately? I mean, we don't know the circumstances of that settlement. How could she be called to testify? What could she say? And is it conflicted by this potential private settlement with Kevin Hart?

No. That happens all the time. If you think about it, there are a lot of multiple defendant cases where the question is, which defendant is liable or sometimes in different proportions. One defendant's 60% liable. One defendant's 40. So if there's a settlement with one defendant, the other defendant can still call them as a witness in order to pass the blame. It's not my fault. It's the fault of this witness who's settled. Now, I don't know if that's the point of calling the podcaster as a witness. I don't know if that's what they're going to, but that would be permissible in most circumstances. I want to ask you

you just generally taking a step back, what do you make of his lawsuit, like the strengths of it, the weaknesses of it that you see? Because when I read it, if you take his allegations as true, to me, there's an argument. It seems pretty straightforward. If she had signed a confidentiality or an NDA and then spoke about her experiences with Kevin Hart and referenced these allegations about a sex tape, which we don't know for sure. We don't know. These were allegations. Isn't she in breach? Isn't this a clear-cut case, or am I looking at it the wrong way? No, I think you're on to something. So when I first looked at this case, the initial thing I thought is he's soon as former assistant.

Like, why is he doing that, right? That seems like punching down in a way that you don't really understand. Okay. The thing that caught my eye, and I know they threw out the extortion cause of action, but the idea that somebody contacted him before these statements were made and said, if you write us a check for $250,000, we won't do it. That's an important component of the case, because that indicates that they were trying to get a financial advantage,

and when he didn't relent and do it, they went ahead and put the information out there. And then I think you're right. It could be a clear-cut violation of the confidentiality agreement, which is something pretty standard that celebrities too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not just celebrities. really anybody of any means who has other people in their life that know personal information

have those kind of agreements to prevent these kind of things. And so I think there, you know, it could be a meritorious lawsuit. And it's interesting because you see celebrities have these agreements. And to be clear, it's not to hide something nefarious. Right. It's, you know, the public persona. These people are around them learning private information about their lives. They're public figures.

You wouldn't want that getting out for potential safety. safety reasons, but also they have a reputation. Well, it's not to, it's a reputation. Look, if you have a assistant, that assistant might know your account numbers. That assistant knows stuff about your family. If you have children, they know stuff about your children. You don't want them releasing any of that. You don't want them talking about your personal life publicly for any reason.

And it's perfectly reasonable to have that kind of agreement. Employees in all sorts of companies, in all sorts of occupations, routinely signed confidentiality agreements where they agree to keep their employers' information confidential. And no reason not to have that with celebrities. Now, there was reporting, and I mentioned this before, that potentially what she may argue is there was a mental health issue, that she was in a state where she couldn't fully appreciate or understand

the circumstances of the NDA. I don't know if she'll also make an argument that she was pressured into signing it. this idea of, I guess you would say, that the agreement was entered into, it's unenforceable, it's invalid, perhaps there's an element of duress. Do you think that those are things we might see? Do you think those things might be a way that you invalidate the NDA, the confidentiality agreement? I could see the defendant throwing some of that into the case. Now, I haven't seen all of the affirmative defenses that have been stated.

I don't know if she's going to try to invalidate the agreement. It's hard in the American court system to argue that I didn't read and understand. the agreement. The American court system assumes if you sign something and you're an adult that you read and understood it. It's really hard to make that argument work. It's hard to say you were under duress if the duress was you were going to get paid good money to have a good job. A lot of people would like to be Kevin Hart's assistant. I think she was probably paid pretty well for that kind of thing. So is that duress that I had to do this to do to have the job? go of a different job.

Does it hurt her claim if she's representing herself? In other words, in the eyes of a jury, they'd be like, so you're making the argument that at that point in time, you couldn't appreciate or understand the NDA, but yet you're representing yourself in a legal case? Oh, that's interesting. You see what I'm saying? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hadn't thought.

I mean, I had had the general thought, and you and I have talked about this in a lot of cases. Representing yourself is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea. That's no slight on shakes. Right. Nobody should represent himself. Everybody should, especially at trial. She doesn't know enough.

You know, you can't slog through it using AI and represent yourself at trial. She might get a little sympathy if a jury thinks, oh, golly, she couldn't even afford a lawyer. We should feel bad for her. She might garner a little bit of sympathy. But I do, the point you just made is an excellent one, that she may demonstrate she's more sophisticated than she wants to portray herself. And it would be easier to portray herself as unsophisticated if she doesn't talk as much. Which I have to say, I read the filings from her. And look, I've read filings from people who have represented themselves. And it's a mess. There was a level

of sophistication here. Now, I actually did think it was interesting. Even she found an opening statement. Is that typical in the litigation? I didn't know what that was about. I haven't really seen that before. And my supposition was it was because it's representing herself that the court asked her to file this. Typically, you don't file an opening statement. And by the

way, it's not a very good opening statement. Like, that's not the opening statement I would want to see be made on her behalf. It's like basically just keep your mind open. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a lot of there are going to be witnesses and please listen to all the evidence, which all of which you should say during opening statement, but she doesn't tell her story at all.

Yeah. She doesn't say why it is she's not liable, which you want to say an opening statement. There was another aspect to this. If you take the allegations as true, that during the course of that interview with Kibi, there wasn't, again, if this is true, there was an allegation. They talked about, hey, are you, did you sign anything? Did you sign an NDA? And there was an alleged acknowledgement. Yeah, I did. That would hurt her claim as well, right? I mean, that would hurt her defense. Yes, if they have her acknowledging that she was thinking about the NDA while she was making the statements that are in violation of the NDA, I think that would be problematic. But I don't get the sense that she's going to argue I didn't know about the NDA. She might argue I was pressured to sign it. I didn't understand it. Yeah. But she's not going to say I didn't know it was there.

I want to show you something else. Okay. So, Shakes says that you. She is going to be a witness in this witness list. I want to read you verbatim, and for our audience what it says. Misha Shakes, defendant's employment with heartbeat. Her duties is Kevin Hart's executive assistant, departure from heartbeat, final wages, communications with heart, termination of health care coverage, circumstances surrounding the October 22nd, 2020 agreement, defendant's understanding concerning months of health care coverage, COBRA payments, the November 2020 interview with Latasha Keebee, the context and intended meaning of statements made during that interview. and other matters personally experienced or observed by defendant,

the statement of facts expressly identifies the health care and agreement issues. Now, in a litigation, right, it's not surprising when you see a plaintiff and defendant taking the stand, but she would be representing herself and taking the stand. How does that work exactly? So it depends on the judge. Typically, if there's a party representing themselves in civil litigation, which doesn't happen a lot. because, first of all, companies can't represent themselves. They have to have a lawyer.

And so an individual can, but they don't usually do it. The judge will probably allow her to testify in a narrative form where she just says what she wants to. She's not going to have to ask herself a question and then answer the question. The court will allow her to testify narratively. there will be objections if she wanders off topic or she starts testifying about hearsay or other objectionable evidence.

And then the plaintiff will cross-examine her with a lawyer just as cross-examination would usually take place. How does it work if this happens? So if she's cross-examined, okay, and I'll even expand it. She's cross-examined. She chooses to take the stand, she, you know, cross-examine. Or let's say she says,

I'm not going to testify in my own case, but Kevin Hart's team decides to call her as a witness, which I'm sure they have the ability to do. Who makes the objections to their questioning? If she's representing herself and she gets a question under cross-examination, does she say, Your Honor, objection? I don't want to answer that. She does, and this is yet another reason

why representing yourself is a terrible idea, because when you're a witness on the stand, you should only be thinking about the question and what your answer is going to be. And she now has to be. And she now has to think about, do I need to object to the question? She's added another job, a job she's not qualified to do, that she has to do while testifying. It's hard.

Occasionally, a pro se will bring in somebody who will kind of serve as a lawyer for a limited purpose. I don't know if she has anybody else. I'm surprised she wouldn't have been able to find somebody else to represent her in this case, but I don't know what went on. One of the other people on the witness list is, of course, Kevin Hart. So let me read to you what it says. Defendant anticipates questioning plaintiff Kevin Hart regarding matters within his personal knowledge concerning defendant Misha Shakes' employment with and departure from heartbeat, communications between heart and shakes concerning final wages, health care coverage, the circumstances surrounding the July 2020 resignation date and the October 22nd 2020 agreement,

representations and communications concerning health care coverage, and the party's respective performance under the agreement. Defendant contends that health care coverage for 36 months was material to her decision to enter the agreement and that the promise coverage was not provided for that period. Goes on to say, defendant further anticipates questioning Hart regarding matters within his personal knowledge concerning the September 2017 recording controversy, which we've talked about involving Montia Sabag, including events personally experienced by Hart, his relationship and communications with J.T. Jackson, and Hart's own statements and communications concerning the incident and subsequent events. Defendant further anticipates questioning Hart regarding matters within his personal knowledge concerning the September 1st, 2019 automobile accident involving Hart and Jared Stanton Black, including the circumstances surrounding the accident, Hart's own statements and communications concerning the accident and its aftermath. Defendant also anticipates questioning Hart regarding law enforcement contacts and investigations

relevant to the evidence in this action, including contacts involving the law enforcement officers identified on defendant's witness list, what information, assistance, or cooperation, if any, was requested from Hart. Hart's response to those requests, whether requested information or assistance was provided, and Hart's reasons for his response to the extent those matters are within Hart's personal knowledge and are determined relevant and admissible by the court.

There's a lot of legalese here. There's a lot more there, but just basically, I mean, let's talk about this for a minute. Aside from the fact that you might have a situation where shakes, his former personal executive assistant, would be questioning him on the stand, which I think would be interesting. What are you thoughts on him taking the stand like this in this format?

He's going to have to. We have questions about some of these other witnesses on her list, but he is essentially the plaintiff. He has sued her in this court. So if she wants to call him as a witness, he's going to have to come testify. That's just a given. And part of the reason for having him on the list is

that it puts a little bit of pressure on him maybe to settle or to give up on this. right at the end, not to go through with it, not to have to testify, not to have to be questioned publicly about stuff that you don't want to be questioned about. That's an interesting aspect of this litigation, right? He's mad that she made certain things public, and by bringing the litigation, he has echoed her podcast appearance, which would have been, you know, over and done with years ago, and no one would have thought about it again, except here we are, on this point.

podcast talking about it because he filed a lawsuit and he was going to trial. He says he was harmed by the statements. And he may believe that and he may want to go through and he probably has considered all of that. Someone's probably said to him, you know, Kevin, this is just going to amplify those statements and they're going to be heard by more people than would have heard of them and he's going to say, I don't care. She violated the agreement. She intentionally harmed me. I'm going to sue her. It's funny because, not funny, but since this news came out this last week about Sabag potentially being called to testify, you have many comments I saw? Kevin Hart has an alleged sex tape. Like nobody knew that allegation.

That's right. Because he had settled that case. That was dismissed. It was thrown out. Or whatever. He had emerged victorious in that case. He had ended it. And now here it is again.

And she's referring to it in part to put pressure. on him. Yeah. Let me ask you this. In a litigation, can he, since it's his case, right, calls his witnesses, can he, you know, when it's his time to testify, he chooses to testify, gives his narrative, he's questioned, and then right before

the cross-examination, he tries to settle with her? Yeah, he could. So now it's his narrative out there, and that's it. He could absolutely try to do it, and I don't know what it would take to do it. It's not impossible that he would end up having to pay her some money. Yeah.

Well, I mean, again, risk, you know, risk loss. I mean, basically risk benefit. What would he have to gain by continuing this being questioned, having all these other witnesses potentially testify on her list? So, I mean, we're going to follow it and see where it goes. But, Rich, I really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks so much. Always glad to be here.

It's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.