All right, get ready. Role when you're ready, Go. Alright. Thanks for coming out. And I think you'll remember whoever covered this or who ever seen it? A few weeks ago. Um, Kevin Glow Gardens team of lawyers joined the game Changers organization, um, to talk about a few things. One thing that we want to rehash was about to describe Grand Juror number two. Who again? And you all know this has joined in with the go get our law team to be represented as it relates to this whole unfolding situation with trying Thio, at least in attempting the on silence to grand jurors through these emotions. And he wasn't a part of the suit per se, but he's with this legal counsel, and we're happy for that. And game changers is going to continue working hand in glove with them for the public transparency on this. And I'd like to bring up attorney Kevin Glow guard to go over everything that's occurred in the last several hours. It's related Thio judge annual Connell's order. Kevin. Thank you, Chris. Good afternoon, everybody. First and foremost, we'll let you all know that our office has already spoken with both anonymous Granger number one and number two, who are very pleased to report that the judge ruled in favor of disclosure in favor of truth and transparency and in the interest of public trust. There is a statement that's been released in writing that you all can refer to, and I will answer any questions related to that. But specifically, we've got the order and hand here from, uh, colleague Mr John Britton. I won't acknowledge Erik Weber, but an integral part of the team is well on Matt Para, who couldn't be with us this afternoon. Um, in the court's order, the court weighed all the law and all the facts in this particular case and specifically weighed the public interest at issue. And the court issued what is a nine page, very detailed, very well written order. And the most relevant part to what we're here for today is where she granted our motion to release the grand jury proceedings to include the UN recorded portions, specifically because Attorney General Daniel Cameron kept making statements regarding what occurred outside of those recordings. And no one was able to weigh in on that refuted clarify it or frankly, to tell him that he was incorrect in his statements. That ability has now been granted. The written statement has been released to the media to share freely. At this time, there won't be any direct interviews with either of our clients. This is still an open matter to some degree. If the attorney general's office wishes to appeal, they have that right to do so. But their motion to hold any orders such as this in advance until that appeal happened was also denied today. So the court's ruling was very clear that at least for the time being, grand jurors, all 12 of them actually are free to speak, whether they want to do so anonymously or publicly. But no one is allowed to disclose they're identifying information or their name without either leave of the court or written permission from those individuals. Our clients at this time, as I stated, are very, very pleased. We, as a legal team, are very pleased and very proud of them for their courage and their efforts on stepping forward, and we're very proud to work with game changers and Chris in trying to help the community gain some understanding here on what really happened during the grand jury proceedings. But at this time, our clients do wish to remain anonymous, were still assessing their position moving forward. And obviously we will monitor any steps that are taken or actions by the attorney general's office. That's pretty much it. And some people have some questions and more than happy to answer them the best of my ability to serve a You said all 12. I was only there were more than 12 people on the grand jury, just 12. There are 12 grand jurors that deliberate. There are often alternates They're there in case someone becomes ill or otherwise unable to perform that duty during that time period. But I believe this order would pertain to the 12 that actually deliberated on this particular case. Given that there's not a stay, we can talk specifics now. So what specifically because this is something that we have been able to get to? What is your grand juror grand jurors concerned about with presentation hair specifically the concerns. I think what you're asking is the way that it was portrayed to the public as to who made what decisions and who agreed with what decisions. Quite frankly, I think if you look at the attorney general statements, they walked back some of that, as we've talked about before, that that may not necessarily be the case, but I will refer you to the written statement that was made. It is not my job. Is a lawyer to speak for my clients, but only to protect their rights. Onda. When they give me permission to speak for them, I will do that. And we did so in writing. Are you expecting in e Can't speak for what they're going to dio. Obviously, they've had a lot of public statements they have made throughout the course of this case. Imagine they'll be making one today, whether or not they appeal. That's up to the E help. You have the weapon. I wouldn't think it would take terribly long, But the one thing you have to consider is if there's an appeal at the next level, there's always the opportunity for an appeal at the Supreme Court of the state. Um, so I don't know. I mean, maybe a couple of months, depending on how quickly the Court of Appeals wanted to rule on. It s so I can't really answer that very definitively. I'm sorry. Yes. Agreed to the sea emotion about releasing the elements that were not a part of the original grand jury proceeding recording. Now he knows the pictures or diagrams. They're gonna be a part of that. I know, like in the inner. Some of them were talking about that pictures and diagrams who are You know, that's a very good question. And you were obviously listening closely to the recording because that was something that was brought up a couple times by the grand jurors. We've not, obviously had a lot of time to digest the order, but as of right now, we take the order as applying to the motion that our client file that was subsequently joined by number two Anonymous number two. It does not specifically address documentary evidence. Uh, no physical evidence of that sort. However, what it does do is create the freedom for individual grand jurors to make their own statements, their own discussions, and in the event that they wanted to do that, you could certainly ask one of them. That question on there now entitled to answer that if they so choose one of the things mentioned in the written statement is that grand jurors were not presented with any charges besides who want endangerment charges because for whatever reason, would it be normal in your experience for a prosecutor to present charges that feel could be successfully prosecuted in the court? That's a good question. It's a very technical question. The actual rule on point is that a prosecutor is not allowed to present any charge that they don't believe is supported by probable cause. That's not exactly the same standard as a successful conviction at trial. However, in this particular case, there were certain statements again that were made by the attorney general that don't really allude to that decision having been made by that office, although it would certainly appear that they made an assessment as to whether or not the law of justification or self defense I was going to prevail at trial. That is not something that we believe, and I think we can comment based on what's been provided in writing, that the grand jurors necessarily agreed with or even given the opportunity to weigh in on your brain, nervous at least believe that they really should have been some disguise, possibility of self defense laws. Our our grand jurors have stated in our written statement that's been released, that those laws were not discussed with the grand jurors. Obviously, as you all know, after having the opportunity to review the 15 hours worth of recordings and going through the P I U files, there's a lot of evidence that was provided to the grand jurors. However, once that evidence is provided, the assessment has to be made as to how it applies to the law. The only opportunity that they were given that we can now ascertain from our clients statement, uh, the recordings and the P I. U files with one endangerment. No other laws were discussed, whether it be particular to a certain offense or defense to a certain defense, this guy generally what your clients might be weighing right now in terms of if and when they would figure out there's a lot of things the way a Z two, if and when to speak out. I think that would apply to all of the jurors that were a part of this case. As we've talked about before, there is no way to really figure out what level of public scrutiny they could see, whether it be good or bad asses. We noted in our filing, and as we've discussed freely before, neither of our grand jurors or in this for any type of A claim, they're not really seeking that media attention. They wanted to contribute to the truth and transparency of this proceeding for the benefit of the whole community. So they have to away all of that their own privacy interests. And then again, as we've discussed any potential appeal on how that may affect their legal rights before, you had mentioned during the experience that they'd be open to written statement. Speaking of you knows, they have a preference for one of the other, uh, again it's it's moving parts that's continuing to be assessed. There has been a written statement released on behalf of anonymous Grand Juror number one. On there was a brief mention of anonymous grand juror number two Aziz well in that statement, and at this time they will stand on that statement and continue to monitor any developments in the case. It's getting the truth about what happened in the grand jury proceeding, the ultimate goal here and doing it quickly. Why not have the grand jurors make statements that air detailed now before the attorney general and violent field? And again, I mean, that's a personal decision for the clients, and what was discussed and contemplated was what was put out in writing. I would submit that it covers a lot of ground, although it's pretty brief. I think it is pretty specific to the major points of conversation on. Obviously, we're interested to see what. And if there's a response from the attorney general's office and we'll continue to monitor. How unique is it for jurors to speak publicly about like this? And also, how might this affect the case going forward? How might it affect Detective Hank Hassan's case or the case? I'm sorry, I just wanna make sure I'm clear on your question. How much? Anything moving forward? What? You're very well. The first part of your question, it is very unique. Toe. Have jurors speak out. It's not entirely unprecedented over the history of our nation. It has happened before. It's happened in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I think back in like 78 or 79 on a very publicized cases well, but in the modern age, the nearest comparison is in Ferguson, which has been discussed with this case already in Missouri. But as far as what implications that could have moving forward, very few on this particular case other than some potential regarding anyone who has not been charged with offenses. Theoretically, it could impact that in some way. But as far as the action, that's in Circuit Court Commonwealth versus Detective Brett Hankerson that will move forward unfettered, untethered, with no issues whatsoever. Based on these statements, uh, the bulk of that has already been put out into the public with the recordings of the grand jury as well as the public Integrity file. It's our understanding, and again you gotta read between some of the lines, sometimes from our public officials. But it's our understanding they intend to prosecute that all the way through to its end. And I don't think this will have any direct effect on that whatsoever. He had a conversation with grandeur won both of them. Yes. Can you tell me how they're feeling right now? They're pleased with the result. Um, and again, you know, the conversation was short was informative in nature and gaining their consent to release the written statement. Onda making sure they were OK with the wording and everything that was being put out. But to answer your question is how they feel. Uh, they feel good about what they're doing. They're happy with the result. They're still cautious about where they go next. We discussed that very briefly as well in our office, made sure to let them know that we were very proud of them on impressed by their courage throughout the process thus far. Just to be clear way response before you let them talk. We're waiting on a number of things, but that's one of them. Yes, they're whatever the responses from the attorney general or if they were to file an appeal legally, that would actually stay the order. That's our opinion. Legally, that's what we discussed with our clients. So if they file that appeal, whether it's today, tomorrow or the next day, we would no longer have that ability to speak eso. We're monitoring that very closely. He said there were multiple things put up. What other things, right? Waiting? Yeah, I'm sorry. There was considering before allowing your clients to speak. One of them maybe appeal. What are the other things that Syria again, it's mostly their comfort level, whether or not they feel good about putting themselves in this position, you know, talking in front of cameras or microphones, doing interviews, how they feel about their anonymity. Uh, although the order is very thorough will continue to parse through it. Uh, there were specific language in there about protecting the anonymity of not only our clients, but the remaining jurors. Uh, s oh, that's something that we would have to discuss is, well, way respect our media great deal here in Kentucky and across the country. But someone who's never answered questions that have legal implications. You gotta be real careful, especially when there are certain interests that have to remain protected on. There are orders that are active out of the Hankerson case. It also restricts certain things that can be discussed. So that's again we're in the in the very new period of having this order, So there's a lot of moving parts. We got to see what if any response comes from Frankfurt, but also just generally, how do our clients feel are they aware of all the things they can talk about? And then does that make them more or less likely to sit down and talk? What's his timeline to appeal to a certain 30 days? Well, generally, yes, about 30 days or so to file it through the order as we interpreted his final at this time so they could appeal it whenever they wanted. We don't know what they're gonna do. Obviously we're not having a discussion with them today or really since the hearing. So we're just sitting back waiting to see what they do. Is it your hope, considering that this might be a field that you're quite that your brother later? I don't have a personal stake in it. You know, we're here to protect our clients interest. We feel like that's what we've been doing all along. We respect their decisions regarding what they wanna do. Eso We're just going to continue to monitor and advise them accordingly. Have you been contacted by any other ranger Sciences too? Not at this time. No, sir. That's good. Thanks. Correct. Thank you. I appreciate your time. If anybody