UNBIASED - Week in Review: March 6-12, 2023

Episode Date: March 13, 2023

1. Silicon Valley Bank Collapses - Largest US Bank Collapse Since 2008 (1:31)2. President Biden Says He Won't Veto Resolution to Block DC Crime Bill (12:47)3. Texas Man Sues Ex-Wife's Friends for Wrongful Death for Helping Her Obtain Abortion Medication (20:55)4. Texas Executes Gary Green via Lethal Injection (29:22)All sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.com.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok @jordanismylawyer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. We're going to be talking about the Washington, D.C. crime bill. We're going to talk about a Texas man suing his ex-wife's friends for helping her get an abortion. That is the first case of its kind, so it's very interesting. And we're going to also talk about a recent execution in Texas. And that will finish off today's episode. Before we get into the stories, let me just remind you again, please, please, please leave

me a review on whichever platform you listen, whether that be Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, whatever it is, I really, really, really appreciate it. Still proud to say that I maintain a five-star review and I hope to keep it that way. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. One of the biggest pieces of news from the last week dropped on Friday, the last day of the week. They're really hitting it hard. Silicon Valley Bank collapsed. If you're not familiar with Silicon Valley Bank, don't worry, you're about to be. I'm going to refer to it as SVB mostly. So whenever I say SVB, just know I'm referring to Silicon Valley Bank. Silicon Valley Bank was the bank that serviced mainly the tech world

and the healthcare world. It was based in Santa Clara, California, founded in 1983, and its clients included things like venture capital firms, startups, healthcare companies, and a lot of people have actually never heard about it prior to last week, despite the fact that SVB is one of the top 20 American commercial banks. I think it lands at number 16. So it was a pretty big bank, but the reason that a lot of people had never heard of it is because it was very niche. Again, that niche being the tech world, startups, etc. So the funny thing is, its niche was actually the envy of the banking space because they were fortunate enough to be able to provide all of the products and services

that any of these tech companies, venture capital funds, private equity funds needed. And, you know, they did business with companies like Shopify, Pinterest, Fitbit, and then also lesser known startups like Shelf Engine, which we'll talk about in a minute, and then venture capital firms like Anderson Horowitz. So a lot of clients. And the thing with these clients and these startups is that they have a lot of money, right? You have tons of investors, tons of money being funneled into these startups, especially high growth startups. So the reason that SVB was the go-to bank for startups was because high growth startups typically couldn't go to normal credit card providers or bigger banks and get these loans and credit cards that they needed. But SVB was able to provide them with those things. So SVB became the bank of

startups. Here's what happened though. Why did this bank collapse? A few months ago, SVB had about $174 billion in deposits. It's a lot of money. This was following the pandemic boom where Silicon Valley businesses were doing really well. But as many of you probably know, in recent months, the tech sector has not been doing that well. This is in part because the Federal Reserve has been aggressively raising interest rates, which kind of slowed the momentum of the tech stocks that had benefited Silicon Valley Bank. And many of SVB's clients started withdrawing their money because these tech companies weren't doing as well. In order to make good on those withdrawals,

SVB had to sell part of its bond holdings at a loss of about $1.8 billion. Now, the higher interest rates that we talked about, so obviously the Federal Reserve has been increasing these interest rates, that also chipped away at the value of these long-term bonds that SVB took on when the interest rates were close to zero, right? So on top of that, on top of that $1.8 billion loss, SVB also announced that it was going to sell $2.25 billion in new shares to avoid further losses. Now this announcement scared SVB's clients, they got worried about SVB's viability, and they proceeded to withdraw even more funds from the bank. This is what we call a bank run. And that's where essentially a bunch of depositors withdraw their money from the bank

simultaneously based on fear that the bank will soon be insolvent. Now, as this bank run progresses, it can really become quite the self-fulfilling prophecy, which is exactly what we saw here. Because as more people withdraw cash out of fear that the bank is going to become insolvent, they actually make that happen. Because this leads to further withdrawals, this eventually can destabilize a bank to the point where it runs out of cash and it now faces bankruptcy. And that's exactly what happened with SVB. So in SVB's case, as of Thursday, the bank's stock price had fallen by about 60%. It continued to fall overnight, and then Friday morning, trading was halted. And by Friday afternoon, SVB had been taken over by the FDIC, which is the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. So it happened very quickly. So what now? In a March 10th press release, the FDIC said that it had created this Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara to protect insured depositors. So at the time of closing, the FDIC, who was the receiver, immediately transferred to this new Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara all insured deposits of SVB. And what this press release said is, quote, all insured depositors will have full access to their insured deposits no later than Monday morning. Now this is equivalent to 250,000. Then it goes on to say the FDIC will pay uninsured depositors an advanced dividend within the next week. Then it goes on to say the FDIC will pay

uninsured depositors an advanced dividend within the next week. Uninsured depositors will receive a receivership certificate for the remaining amount of their uninsured funds. As the FDIC sells the assets of Silicon Valley Bank, the future dividend payments may be made to uninsured depositors. It goes on to say that as of December 31st, 2022, so year end, SBB had approximately $209 billion in total assets and about $175 billion in total deposits. At the time of closing, the amount of deposits in excess of the insurance limits was undetermined. The amount of uninsured deposits will be determined once the FDIC obtains additional information from the bank and customers. Some estimates suggest that as little as 3% of the bank's

deposits are below $250,000, which means that the majority of depositors have money that far exceeds the standard federal insurance. To put this kind of in perspective, one of the startups that had their funds in SVB called Shelf Engine, I talked about it just a second ago, and I said we were going to talk about it more. This is what we're going to say about it. Shelf Engine said that the $250,000 payment from the FDIC would let the company stay open for an additional several days, but not much longer than that. So think about that. That only allows them to stay open for, for a short time, right? We're talking days. We're not talking weeks. We're talking days. So shelf engine, just to give you a little bit of

context is a 40person startup. It was founded in 2015. And what they do is they actually use AI to help grocery stores reduce food waste. Very cool concept. It's raised more than $60 million from investors. And although the CEO wouldn't say the exact amount of money that they lost due to SVB's closing. They said it was a lot. And basically what he says is his employees were just paid this week. His next payroll deadline is March 20th. And obviously, depending on salaries, cost of operations, et cetera, $250,000 might not cut it, which is why he's saying, look, that's enough to get us through the next several days, but not much longer than that. Now, one of the better known companies caught in this fire is

Roku. I'm sure a lot of you have heard of it. It's a popular TV streaming provider. And they said in a filing on Friday that they had about $487 million with SVB, which is equivalent to about 26% of the company's cash as of March 10th. And while the rest of the company's cash is held in other, you know, various large banks, most of its deposits with SVB were uninsured. So it's really not clear how much they're going to be able to recover from the bank. But in that filing that I referenced, which I do have linked on my website, the company stated that it continues to believe that its existing cash and cash equivalents, you company stated that it continues to believe that its existing cash and cash equivalents, you know, will be sufficient to meet its working capital,

capital expenditures, and material cash requirements from known contractual obligations for the next 12 months and beyond. So as you can see, it's not really the Rokus of the world that are in danger. It's the smaller startups like Shelf Engine who don't think they're going to be able to make it, you know, past this week. But those small startups eventually turn into the Rokus of the world, right? Which is why some people are saying that the collapse of SVB has the potential to kill an entire generation of startups that haven't necessarily made it to that Roku level or Shopify level or, you know, just that larger scale level. Importantly, though, while this marks the largest failure of a U.S. bank since Washington Mutual in 2008, most banking experts do not expect this situation to spread

into other parts of the financial world. So according to those experts, we're likely not going to see another financial crisis like that of 2008. SVB just isn't a big enough bank. But then you have, you know, people on the other side that think that this could have a domino effect. And an example of that is Bill Ackman, who is a billionaire CEO of Purging Square Capital Management. He tweeted on Saturday in part quote, the government has about 48 hours to fix a soon to be irreversible mistake by allowing SVB to fail without protecting all depositors. The world has woken up to what an uninsured deposit is an unsecured illiquid claim on a failed bank. Absent JP Morgan, Citi, or Bank of America acquiring SVB before open on Monday, or the government guaranteeing all of SVB's deposits, the giant

sucking sound you will hear will be the withdrawal of substantially all uninsured deposits from all but the systematically important banks, end quote. Now, despite Ackerman's take, the White House has stated that the post 2008 reforms will protect the economy. And, you know, we don't really have a lot at risk here, but because of the newness of the story, we're just not sure the domino effect that this will have, if any. So we're going to see developments today, tomorrow, into the coming weeks. Again, this is just such a new developing story. So stay tuned for that because I guarantee you this will be a top story in the news this week.

But that is essentially how SVB collapsed and why this kind of affects a generation of startups that may not get the same opportunity that the startups of, you know, 10 years ago had. But with that, let's jump into the second story, which surrounds the Washington D.C. crime bill. A lot of interesting components to the story. So let's get into it. President Biden says that he will not veto a resolution blocking the Washington D.C. crime bill. And this came as a surprise to many people. Why? Well, it all boils down to Washington, D.C.'s lack of statehood. So Washington, D.C. is weird in the sense that it's not its own state. So everything that D.C. does can be checked by Congress. It's what we call a lack of statehood. Basically, Congress is the check and balance on

D.C.'s local affairs. So any bill that clears the D.C. council goes to Congress and Congress gets a chance to weigh in. And then the president has the final say. So let's bring this back to the point of the story. President Biden has always voiced his support for D.C.'s statehood until it came to this crime bill. So the new D.C. criminal code, it's been in the works for more than 10 years. It would have been the first overhaul of D.C.'s criminal statutes since 1901. And while the bulk of this new code is pretty uncontroversial, like there's not really much to fight over. Some federal lawmakers just couldn't get behind the lessened maximum penalties for certain violent crimes. And that's because we're seeing such

increased crime rates right now, especially in big cities, that the last thing a lot of people want to do is lessen these maximum penalties. Now, advocates of this new criminal code or the updates to the criminal code are saying that all these changes are doing is really just bringing the code in alignment with the penalties actually handed down by judges. Because after all, judges aren't handing out maximum sentences unless it's the worst of that particular crime, right? But then of course you have the argument on the other side that if you lower the maximum sentence for these crimes, then the general, you know, typical sentence handed down also goes down because it's a sliding scale.

So if the, if the maximum sentence goes from, you know, let's just say 10 years to five years, right now, judges aren't handing out 10-year sentences. Let's say they're handing out five-year sentences typically. Well, if you lower that maximum sentence to five years, judges aren't going to hand out five-year sentences. They're instead going to hand out, let's say, two-year sentences, right? I hope that makes sense. So many people on both sides of the aisle weren't really buying this argument in favor of lesser penalties, which is why it got bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The D.C. mayor and police chief also objected to these aspects of the update. They did not want lesser sentences. But here lies the problem. President Biden finds himself in a pretty sticky

situation because he has the ultimate say. Once this passes Congress, he has the ultimate say. And while he's a huge supporter of D.C. autonomy, he's also trying to crack down on crime. So what does one do in that situation? President Biden tweeted on March 2nd, quote, I support D.C. statehood and home rule, but I don't support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the mayor's objections, such as lowering penalties for carjackings. If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did, I'll sign it. So here's the issue. D.C. Council, you know, passes this this new criminal code, which lessens certain maximum sentences for certain crimes. And if D.C. had statehood or, you know, D.C. had home law, then this new criminal code would stand it that that would be

the binding law on Washington, D.C. But because D.C. doesn't have statehood, Congress gets to have a say. The president gets to have a say. So it's not just up to the D.C. council, right? So that's why people are kind of saying, like, how can you, President Biden, support D.C. autonomy, but now you're using your power to overturn what D.C. council did? That's very contradictory. So that is why a lot of people

are confused. You have some people that are angry, but the reality is that if president Biden is going to be running again in 2024, this is likely part of his strategy. As CNN stated, president Biden doesn't want to appear soft on crime heading into the 2024 election. Americans do not like where the country is when it comes to efforts to on crime heading into the 2024 election. Americans do not like where the country is when it comes to efforts to reduce crime, and that is a fact. A Gallup poll taken at the beginning of 2023 showed that 70% of adults were dissatisfied with America's efforts to reduce or control crime. That was only the second time in this century in which at least 70% of Americans reported dissatisfaction in the area of crime. I mean, he knows where the priorities of American people stand. The numbers do not lie. And that's

exactly what his team is going to help him with if he plans on running again. Homicide rates in America's three most populated cities are all up, New York, LA, Chicago. Car thefts are up 59% across 30 major cities. And you're seeing how fed up people are through elections. Just in the last couple of years, Chicago's mayor, Lori Lightfoot, became the first elected mayor to lose reelection in 40 years. And her loss wasn't even a small one. She only received 17% of the primary vote. And that's not to say that that happened solely because of crime rates, but statistics would show that crime played a part. Crime in Chicago is skyrocketing. In 2022, Republicans almost won their first governor's race in New York since 2002. And this almost happened because the GOP nominee

tackled the Democratic governor on specifically the issue of crime. And remember, almost two years ago, Eric Adams, the former police captain in the NYPD, was elected mayor where crime was the number one issue. But no election quite illustrates the impact of rising crime than the recall of San Francisco's DA last year. Despite San Francisco being one of the most liberal cities in the country, 55% of city voters recalled the district attorney after deeming him too soft on crime. And of course, aside from these elections, the polls themselves also show that crime is a huge issue with Americans. An ABC News Washington poll from late 2022 found that Republicans were trusted over Democrats on the issue of crime by 20 points, and crime was the best issue for Republicans of any issue

tested in the poll. So as you can see, it makes sense why the president is doing what he's doing. It's definitely a tough line to walk without a doubt. How do you support DC autonomy? You support DC statehood, but also say, actually, I support Congress checking on this and reversing what DC council did. It's tough, but it's important for him to send a message on crime. You know, more important, I guess, for him to send a message on crime than stick to his guns regarding D.C. statehood and home law, especially ahead of 2024 election. Should he run? He doesn't want that to be used against him by his opponents. Right. So it's strategy. I mean, I obviously can't say for sure if this is strategy ahead of the election because we don't know if he's running or if it's just him doing what he feels is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, that is where the confusion is stemming from. So that takes us into the last two stories, which both stem out of

Texas. One has to do with a man suing his ex-wife's friends for helping her with an abortion, and the other is a recent execution. A Texas man is suing his ex-wife's friends for wrongful death and conspiracy for allegedly helping her obtain abortion pills. Marcus Silva is seeking more than a million dollars from each of the three defendants and an injunction prohibiting them from distributing abortion pills. His ex-wife is not a defendant in the lawsuit, and that is because Texas's law exempts the pregnant woman herself and only includes those who assist a pregnant woman in obtaining an abortion. So here's what the complaint says. And I'm not going to use first names just

for privacy reasons. I think that's the respectful thing to do. But basically what it says is that in July of 2022, Silva's ex-wife found out she was pregnant with his child. She though had already filed for divorce in May. So just two months before she found out she was pregnant, she filed for divorce. Keep in mind that, you know, if we're looking at a timeline here, Roe versus Wade was overturned in June. So she files for divorce in May. Roe versus Wade is overturned in June. She gets pregnant in July and she wants to get an abortion. Now, this lawsuit relies heavily on text screenshots between the wife and her friends.

And what it shows is that she didn't want to tell her husband about the pregnancy. She felt that her husband was going to use it against her. He was going to try to use it as a reason to stay with her. And she was clearly trying to get out of the marriage. So instead, she went to her friends for help. The text messages are exactly what you would expect a group chat between a few girls to look like. She's asking for help. Her friends are trying to figure out how they can help her.

One friend sends her a link to abortionfinder.org. Another friend is asking her, you know, when was your last period? Where's your head at? How are you feeling? And she's just really saying how she's mad at herself for letting this happen. Again, she knows her husband's going to use the pregnancy against her. If he finds out, he's going to use it as a reason to stay with her and try to act like he has a say in the decision as to whether to keep the child or not. So then the text messages, they talk about aidaccess.org.

They talk through, you know, how you can get the pills through telehealth. So then the text messages, they talk about aidaccess.org. They talk through, you know, how you can get the pills through telehealth. One of the friends mentions that the legality of getting the pills shipped into Texas is unclear. So ultimately one of her friends knows someone who can get the pills and gets them delivered. The other friends suggest, you know, deleting the messages. So her husband doesn't find them. That clearly did not happen because the husband did find them. So the girl that is actually delivering the pills is not one of the girls included in that friend group text. It's, it's someone else. It's a connection that one of the girls has. And so that girl that's delivering the pills texts the wife and asks her

to download this app called Signal so they can text through that because allegedly it was like a safer way to communicate. And at some point thereafter is when the wife had the pills delivered to her, she took them and she self-managed her abortion. Let's talk through the legality of it all. Texas is one of the strictest states when it comes to abortion. So if there's any place for a husband to win this lawsuit, he is in the right place. Texas's wrongful death statute basically says that a person is liable for damages arising from an injury that causes an individual's death if the injury was caused by the person's wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness, or default. And here we are going to specifically

focus on wrongful act, not neglect, not carelessness, not unskillfulness, not default. And Texas's definition of individual, right? Because it's, it's damages arising from an injury that causes an individual's death. Texas's definition of individual includes unborn children. So the basis of the wrongful death claim is that these two friends, as well as the woman who ultimately delivered the pills, caused the death of the unborn child through their wrongful acts. And these women knew that what they were doing was wrong, yet each of them had the awareness that they were assisting in the abortion. For the conspiracy claim, the husband has to show five things.

Number one, that there was a combination of two or more people. Number two, that these people were seeking to accomplish something. Number three, that there was a meeting of the minds between those people. Number four, that one or more unlawful overt acts were taken in pursuance of the acts. So in this case, that would be obtaining the pills and getting them delivered. And the fifth thing that the husband would have to prove is that damages occurred as a result. In this case, that would be the death of the unborn child. And again, he's seeking a million dollars from each of the three defendants plus an injunction to stop them from distributing abortion pills or assisting in self-managed abortions. Now here's where the case gets a

little bit complicated because Roe versus Wade, yes, it was overturned in June, but this doesn't mean that it's, you know, an easy win for the husband. Texas did have a trigger law in anticipation of Roe being overturned. As we know, some states had those where, you know, right when Roe was overturned, these trigger laws would take effect in X amount of days. But Texas's trigger law didn't take effect until August. Everything in this lawsuit happened in July. This law would not apply retroactively. So the trigger law that took effect in August, you can't apply to July because it wasn't, it wasn't in effect then. So you have that, but you also have the fact that Texas's attorney general has made the claim in the past that

Texas's pre-Roe abortion bans automatically took effect the day Roe was overturned. And those bans punish anyone who performs or furnishes the means for an abortion by up to five years in prison. However, just because Texas's attorney general makes this claim doesn't necessarily mean it's true. District courts and appellate courts have both ruled that those pre-Roe laws were, quote, repealed by implication when Roe was decided. So basically what's happening there is before Roe versus Wade was ever a thing, Texas had bans on abortion. Roe versus Wade was decided. And what the courts are saying is that when Roe versus Wade was decided, those pre-Roe bans automatically were repealed. There's a lot going on. Again, this is the first case of its kind. So it's going to be interesting to see where it goes.

Some legal experts think that the case could gain traction. Others think the lawsuit is just straight up ridiculous and pointless and don't think it's going to go anywhere. Joanna Grossman, who's a law professor at SMU Dedman School of Law in Texas, called the lawsuit absurd and inflammatory, saying that since the pregnant patient herself is protected from prosecution, there's actually no underlying cause of action to bring a wrongful death suit in a self-managed abortion. Because after all, she is the one who ultimately, you know, managed the abortion. She took the pills and she is protected from prosecution. So how are you going to go after the friends? But she does say that this is going to cause such fear and chilling that it doesn't matter if there's merit to the case. It's going to freak people out. And she says, who's going to want to

help a friend find an abortion if there's some chance the case. It's going to freak people out. And she says, who's going to want to help a friend find an abortion if there's some chance that their text messages are going to end up in the news? Maybe they're going to get sued. Maybe they're going to get arrested. And this case will get dropped eventually. But in the meantime, they will have been terrified. So that is what Joanna Grossman says. I hate to say this, but it really depends on the judge that takes this case. From there, I would imagine this case gets appealed. It was just, I mean, this petition was just filed on March 9th. It's very, very new. So it's likely going to be a while before we see any sort of movement on this. And when I say a while, I just mean at a minimum a few months, but I guarantee

you when there is a judgment of any kind, this case will be in the news just because it's such a controversial topic that, you know, even if the judge rules in favor of the husband, that's obviously going to make news for, for its own reasons. If the judge dismisses the case, it's going to make news for its own reasons. So no matter what, I'm sure this is not the end of the story. Now onto some other news out of Texas and execution. The first execution in March took place in Texas. His name was Gary Green, and he was executed on March 7th via the lethal injection. As we know in Texas, it is one lethal dose of pentobarbital. He was convicted in 2010 for murdering his wife and her six-year-old daughter in 2009.

There was, I guess I should say, no question as to his guilt. He turned himself in to police. He confessed to the killings. He said he stabbed his wife and drowned her daughter in the bathtub after his wife told him she wanted to annul their marriage. He also planned on killing his wife's two sons, but they persuaded him not to after he stabbed one of them in the abdomen. He then tried to kill himself with Tylenol and Benadryl. That didn't

work. And that's when he ultimately went to the police hours later. One month before the murders, he tried to get himself help at a psychiatric hospital in Dallas, but the facility incorrectly diagnosed him. They discharged him after four days and they prescribed him with medication that he couldn't even take because he couldn't afford it. So it's safe to say he knew he had a problem. He tried getting help for it and he was not able to. Prior though to these 2009 murders, he had two previous arrests, one in 1989 for possession of cocaine, and then one in 1990 for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon when he stabbed his high school girlfriend. He's got a record. He had a record. In February, his attorneys requested that his

execution be delayed so he could undergo further tests of his intellectual disability. And this is because in 2002, the Supreme Court prohibited the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Texas defines intellectual disability based on low IQ scores, how inmates interact with others and care for themselves and whether deficiencies in those areas occurred before the age of 18. Now an IQ score of 70 is generally considered, you know, a threshold in that analysis, but the lowest score that Green submitted in his state proceedings was a 78. So he did not meet that level of, you know, severe intellectual disability, which would have prevented his execution. So that request was denied by both the lower appeals courts and the Supreme Court.

During the execution, he had a Buddhist spiritual advisor stand near him. The spiritual advisor said a short prayer and he was very apologetic in his final words. So his final words were said to, uh, his prior relatives, I guess you would call him because they were his ex-wife's, you know, family members, which he was related to at one time. So he said, quote, I apologize for all the harm I have caused you and your family. We ate together. We laughed and cried together as a family. I'm sorry I failed you. I took not one, but two people that we all loved. And I had to live with that while I was here. We were all one and I broke that bond. I ask that you forgive me, not for me, but for y'all. I'm fixing to go home and y'all are going

to be here. I want to make sure you don't suffer. You have to forgive me to heal and move on. I am not the man I used to be. End quote. He did not get a final meal because as we know, Texas does not offer final meals and Texas's next execution happened on March 8th, just one day later. And we will cover that execution in the next episode, which will release this Friday. Which brings me to an announcement that I have to make before I conclude this episode.

My podcast is now going to be released on Friday. And the main reason for that being that I like to give you guys a week in review, right? All of my episodes are titled week in review. And I think that the best way to do that is to release it on Friday. That way it's an end of week recap. So it'll still be released in the morning. So you can listen to it on the way to work or in the gym or, you know, wherever you listen, but it's going to be an end, a true end of week review. So just be on the lookout for that. But if you're subscribed, you don't even have to worry about it because you'll get the notification right away. So make sure you subscribe to my podcast on

whichever platform you listen. And don't forget to leave me that review because it is very appreciated and really, really, really just helps my show. So I hope you guys have a great rest of your week and I will talk to you on Monday.