(0:00 - 0:22) For two years, our governments in Canada violated our charter rights under the COVID narrative, but they couldn't keep that game going indefinitely, so now they need something new. Climate lockdowns. In 2023, and again this year, Nova Scotia closed the woods province-wide for over two months under threat of severe fines if anyone violated those orders. (0:23 - 1:44) Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick imposed similar restrictions. Ostensibly, the justification for this was that 2025 was an exceptionally dry year, and people going into the woods would increase the risk of forest fires. While we don't have reliable rainfall data yet for 2025, that was their excuse in 2023 as well, and as you can see from this chart, rainfall that year was actually above average. When Jeff Evely, a 20-year Canadian Armed Forces veteran, notified forestry officers that he was going to defy the ban on August 9th, they issued him a ticket for $28,872.50 after spending just 90 seconds in the woods. This led to questions from the public, and the Nova Scotia government started changing their story, their justification for the ban becoming ever more ridiculous. What becomes obvious, listening to Jeff's first-hand account, is that what we are actually seeing are the actions of a captured and incompetent government who, rather than doing the job they were elected to do, are in fact working against the people. Jeff, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me, Will. It's great to be here. (1:46 - 3:24) Now, you have become sort of famous in Canada for this case that you've taken on in Nova Scotia on behalf of all of us, on behalf of our rights and freedoms. Thank you very much for that. But for those people who are watching this who may not know what happened August 9th in Nova Scotia, would you please tell us what happened there? Sure thing. Actually, I think even fewer people are aware of how it started because they actually brought in this ban in 2023 during the wildfire season then. That was when we had the Barrington fire that was the largest in Nova Scotia's history. They imposed a blanket ban across the province on entering the woods. I live on Cape Breton Island, so there's a very clear natural fire break between us and the mainland where the fires were happening. It's called the Strait of Canso. It's a slice of ocean that's about two kilometres wide and there's never been a fire that's ever jumped it in the past. So I thought that that was an overreach at that time and I submitted an application for judicial review to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Eventually, it was dismissed on standing. The Crown argued mootness since, of course, the ban was lifted by the time it got to court and they also argued standing. They said I tried to argue public interest standing and private interest standing. They said I couldn't enter into proceedings as a public interest litigant because I wasn't a lawyer or a civil liberties organisation and I didn't have private interest standing because I was not harmed and I was not fined. The judge said had I gotten a fine, then I would have gotten private interest standing. (3:24 - 3:37) When they brought the bans in earlier this year, I knew what I had to do right away. I had to go out and take a fine. So I called DNR ahead of time and made an appointment to come in and get my fine. (3:37 - 3:54) They said that about four o'clock would be a good time because that's when the guys are just coming in on shift. So I drove out to the office there in Cocksheath, Nova Scotia. I explained the situation on the phone to the supervisor prior to heading out there. (3:54 - 5:03) And when I got there, I told the guys, you know, nothing personal guys. I'm not trying to make any trouble for you, but this is the situation. It's just that the judge says they won't review these mandates in light of our charter rights because there has to be money involved. So I invited them to follow me out behind the building and watch me walk into a dense patch of bush for about 90 seconds. And when I came out the other side, they brought me back inside and issued me a $28,872.50 fine, $25,000 in fines, plus taxes and victim fees. Right. And what was the attitude of the officers you dealt with? I thought they were pretty good, pretty professional. I, you know, initially, they tried to intimidate me a little bit, threatened to double the fine to $50,000. And I said, yeah, that sounds good. Let's do it. And just kind of kept it cool. I understood that they were going to do those kinds of things because that's what their superiors expect them to do, that they would try to deter me from going forward with the violation. (5:04 - 5:57) But at the end of the day, they were pretty good sports about it. We all shook hands before I left. And actually, there was some kind of a clerical error. You know, DNR says it was the courts, court says it was DNR. I don't really know. But they had to issue me a new ticket. And there's the same guy who threatened to double my fine actually came to my house and gave me the new fine and, you know, shook my hand again, had a good laugh about the fact that Joe Rogan mentioned it and was on his way. At the end of the day, I think they're just kind of regular guys. They're just, you know, some good old boys down home, Kate Brett and Erson. Off camera, a lot of the stuff that I edited out, like there were some pretty pleasant interactions there. We were just doing the small town Kate Brett and chitchat thing about, you know, do you know this guy? Do you know that guy? Who's your father? And things like that. So, so yeah, I thought they were pretty decent. (5:58 - 7:26) And they, a little bit of professional courtesy, I think, went a long way. Jeff, you've served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 20 years. I believe you achieved the rank of warrant officer, which, if I understand correctly, is the highest rank an NCO can have. Is that correct? I never served myself, so. No, I was the master warrant officer. So it was one rank above warrant officer. And the highest rank would be the next one after that. So chief warrant officer is the highest rank in the NCO Corps. And I was, I was second. All right. But which means, essentially, you served your country, you served well. Yes. Yeah, that's fair. Yeah. So my question then would be, was what you did here in any way connected to that service? That you're feeling that this is something you have to do for your country? Absolutely. I mean, and I suppose I feel this much more strongly, having given my experience in the military, especially serving in Afghanistan. And, you know, later in Iraq, to a lesser extent, we didn't really, you know, lose as many people there, obviously. But I was in Afghanistan at a time when I may have potentially seen more young Canadians repatriated to Canada in a flag-draped coffin than any other living Canadian. So I think I have a pretty good sense of the true price of freedom. I've been singing, we stand on guard for thee my whole life. So, you know, I think I mean that more these days than I ever did before. (7:27 - 8:43) And I felt a duty, because I was trained when I went to basic training, that I have a duty to defy illegal orders. And of course, the question is always, well, how am I going to know that the order is illegal? And the answer is, you have to use your own judgement. And then the next question is always, well, you know, what happens? What kind of protections am I going to have if I turn out to be wrong? And the answer is none. You're going to go in front of the judge. The judge is going to review these orders in light of the law. And if you turn out to be wrong, then you're going to be under the Code of Service Discipline. But we impose this heavy burden on our young people, because this is the only thing that separates us from Nazis. So I think we've kind of let things slide far enough. We've lost enough ground as it is, not one more inch. And my intention was to stick to my duty and, you know, defy this tyrant, get these mandates in front of a judge so that they can be reviewed in light of the Constitution. And, you know, if my judgement turns out to be wrong, I don't think that it is, then, you know, I'll be stuck with this fine. But at the end of the day, my duty will be satisfied. (8:44 - 9:40) What is the Houston government's supposed justification for this violation of our rights? Well, they keep saying that it's a really dry season. And, you know, they say, the things that I hear some of the senior DNR guys saying are things like, more people in the woods means more fires. And it all really just kind of falls apart, because we can see that there are people being allowed into the woods all over the Atlantic provinces. New Brunswick got on board with the ban for a little while, but the narrative kind of started to fall apart. And some people have said that it was in response to the pressure that I was applying. Susan Holt said that, you know, no, you can't go in the woods. But obviously, it's not because you're going to start a fire. It's because you're going to break your leg, and we don't have enough resources to rescue you. And then it went back. (9:41 - 11:18) I got to stop you there, Jeff. So now you can't go in the woods because you might break your leg. Are they serious? That's what she said. She said it with a straight face. And she also said that, we're stretched too thin. We're already fighting fires, so we don't have enough resources to do both. So right there, she admitted that it is a mismanagement issue. They don't have enough resources in place to provide life-saving services that we pay for. And what's his name? I think it's Brad Wall in Newfoundland. He said, I can't stop people from going in the woods. Like, Newfoundland is the woods. And that was my point. I was like, Nova Scotia is the woods. Have you been to Nova Scotia, Tim Houston? Because it's the woods. And eventually, it did go back to Tim Houston. And he kind of said, OK, sure, I know sneakers don't really cause fire. But what if you were to get lost and find yourself engulfed in the flames of a wildfire? I don't think anybody wants that. And I did a post. I was like, I would like to thank the dear leader for showing me the error of my ways. Were it not for his overbearing paternalism, I might have gotten lost in the park by my house and accidentally walked my dog for eight days to find myself engulfed in the flames of the nearest wildfire. Because that's what we were talking about. They actually taped off gravel trails in the park by my house, because those were considered the woods, and other parts of the park were not considered to be the woods. So the whole thing, I think, just really goes to kind of the absurdity of it all. And I had a lot of fun humiliating these people. (11:19 - 11:35) I got to pursue this further, Jeff, because you've just revealed something. I didn't know this, what you've just told me. And I'm sure a lot of the viewers didn't either. So this all started out as, well, you know, it's a dry season. We have to prevent the forest fires, blah, blah, blah. We'll get into that later in the previous interview that I did with a mutual friend of ours, Peter MacIsaac. (11:35 - 12:34) But now, suddenly, the narrative is, well, you might get hurt. Is this the nanny state running them up, that we're supposed to accept that we're not growing up enough to accept the risk of walking in the woods? Because the natural result of that reasoning is that we should all stay home and sit in our chairs and not go anywhere we don't absolutely have to go, because we might get hurt. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, like, where does it end, right? And what level of control over our lives does this nanny state consider to be too far? Where is the line? You know, and I would say that the line is coercion, that what we mean when we say a free society is that it is free of coercion. And, you know, I have a right to liberty under our Constitution. So any infringement on my right to live my life freely, as I say, so long as I do no harm to another, that needs to be justified. (12:34 - 14:06) And of course, we have the Oakes test, where, you know, these measures, they need to be proportional, and they need to be logically connected to the goal. And I can find no logical connection between banning my sneakers from the woods and preventing wildfires. So these are the kinds of things that were the kinds of questions that we're going to be asking when we get into course. But what I called it, when Susan Holt said that, now mind you, she's the Premier of New Brunswick, and I'm dealing with Tim Houston, the Premier of Nova Scotia. But they all kind of, you know, fed into each other because they were dealing with the same kind of crisis at the same time. But what I said at the time when she made that comment was that the paternalism of the guilty mind, central to the essence of totalitarianism, is on full display in the Atlantic provinces. And that's what I think it is, is they have so grossly mismanaged the resources that we all pay for, that these systems that are supposed to be there to keep us alive, to facilitate our survival, have crumbled. And they're all scrambling to hide their guilt in all of this, to prevent us from realising just the situation that we're really in. And so they impose these, you know, overbearing, these paternalistic and, you know, totalitarian measures on the rest of us, basically to hide their culpability for their utter mismanagement. (14:07 - 17:28) Right, and we'll get into that in a minute, but I want to take a little side trail, because twice now you've mentioned sneakers, and this is something else I wasn't aware of. How does that fit into this narrative? Well, that's what I've been saying. I've been asking them to explain how it is that my sneakers caused wildfire. Because they could have done any number of things. Like I said, well, they might as well be saying, in effect, that is what they are saying. And I like to express myself like this, you know, to basically to get a conversation going. You know, you can make a kind of controversial statement that's easy to challenge, and then defend it. And that leads to a kind of a conversation. So the sneakers portion of us, that is ultimately what you would have to believe in order to believe that preventing me from walking my dog in the park by my house on a gravel path is logically connected to the goal of preventing wildfires. Because I don't carry a source of ignition on me. I could not start a fire if I tried, maybe if I rubbed sticks together. But that is actually really hard to do. So for me to accidentally cause a fire, you would have to believe that sneakers are a wildfire hazard. Right. Okay. Now I was making reference to the conversation I had with Peter MacIsaac a couple months ago. We were discussing your case. And I'm sure you know Peter. He's got something like 30 years of experience in forest fire management. And he pointed out a number of very interesting things. That first of all, they got rid of the watchtowers. They said that they were going to have hikers with cell phones reporting wildfires. I don't know how much time these people spent in the woods. I would guess none. I've spent lots of time hiking in the woods in Alberta. And in most cases, once you're more than a few kilometres in, you don't have a signal. So I'm not quite sure how they thought that was going to work. They got rid of the number one helicopter for fighting these fires. They cut back the teams. So they've basically crippled the ability to see a fire when it happens, and they crippled the ability to respond to it. Yeah. And that's the kind of mismanagement that I'm talking about. And I don't know if the signal is that much of an issue around here or how much of an issue it is. I'm sure it is. I'm sure that there are plenty of places out in the woods where you're not going to have a signal. So probably not very well thought out to get rid of the towers in the first place. But if your justification for getting rid of the towers was that they're redundant in light of the fact that there are so many people in the woods who happen to have cell phones, then you can't ban people from the woods. That would not be logically connected to the goal of preventing wildfires because they are your wildfire prevention now in light of the fact that you got rid of all the towers. Right. No, it doesn't make any sense at all. So I guess I have to interject here then. Your opinion, Jeff, since we pointed out that none of their justifications have any logic behind them, make any sense, why do you think they're really doing this? I think that they're in a situation right now where they've so utterly mismanaged our public resources that they see the writing on the wall. (17:28 - 19:14) From behind the scenes, they're absolutely crippled in terms of their ability to respond, to provide basic services that we all expect of the province. Everything like our EMT services, our health care services, and now our forestry management across the board, everything is crumbling. All of these systems that we've taken for granted for so long are crumbling on their watch and they are absolutely scrambling to come up with excuses to shift blame away from themselves. They're constantly shifting blame, pushing it down on the citizens. It was the same thing during COVID. They seemed to have no idea what they were doing, so they were just making things up. We end up doing this kind of health theatre so that they can kind of pat themselves on the back. In Atlantic Canada, they had the Atlantic bubble and they weren't allowing anybody to come into the Atlantic provinces or go in and out of the Atlantic provinces. I think that's an infringement on our rights, of course, but I wasn't living here at the time. Then they go around patting themselves on the back and saying that they did such a great job managing this crisis because our numbers were so low. If you just look at, say, for example, the Northwood old age home there, they decimated the old age home. There were 53 deaths when COVID hit. They had absolutely no preps. It wasn't until a whistleblower from the Canadian Armed Forces started releasing information to the press from what they were seeing in the old age homes in Quebec that a lot of this stuff really started coming to life. They were trying to cover that up. (19:14 - 20:53) Our old folks' homes were not prepared at all. They'd been totally mismanaged. These people suffered tremendously. It was just cruel what they did to them during the pandemic. It was all for the sake of theatre, to be seen doing something as opposed to appear to be doing something as opposed to actually doing something meaningful to address the crisis that we were facing. Because they did the Atlantic bubble, they will go around patting themselves on the back for low mortality in the Atlantic provinces. Really, the low mortality is a reflection of just how benign the virus is, first of all, or was, first of all, and also the fact that we're a rural population. If you look at the data from different hospitals around the rural scene, you'll find that there are zero COVID patients admitted. They were all in Halifax and the population centres. That's the only place you're really seeing that. Because they did the Ottawa bubble, they can take credit for low mortality. It's all a big fraud. It's a bunch of theatre. We see more of this now. It's wildfire theatre. That's why I think so many people are getting COVID vibes when they see videos of me showing all these taped off trails in the park by my house. Right. To speak to that, I did some research on the number of percentage of hectares burned this past year by province as a percentage of the total hectares of woodland in the province. (20:54 - 21:35) That should tell the story whether or not this strategy on the part of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, New Brunswick worked. But it doesn't appear that it did. The four western provinces were way ahead of everyone else, so let's not worry about them. And then we got Ontario, just over one percent. The next was Nova Scotia at 0.2 percent. And then we've got Newfoundland, Labrador at 0.17. New Brunswick at 0.04. Quebec, which didn't have any of that going on, 0.01. And Prince Edward Island at 0. So clearly, if it's supposed to stop forest fires, it's not working. (21:36 - 25:04) Right. Yeah, but you know, I think if we compared the resources that were brought to bear in terms of forest management between those provinces, then you would see a correlation there between percentage of hectares burned and the worst management, you know, the lowest number of resources. So like I said, that's what's really going on. This is a mismanagement crisis across the board. The people who are supposed to be leading these institutions, you know, whether it's the fire services, whether it's EMT, whether it's health care, whether it's the press or the police, you know, we have the gun grab going on in Cape Breton here that our police chief, our Cape Breton Regional Police Chief, is actually retiring on the 1st of January. So I think perhaps pressure works. We have seen this. So, you know, he's been taking a lot of flack for helping out his brother-in-law, Mike Kelleway, who is the Liberal MP, by being the only police chief in the country with sufficiently low regard for his citizens to, you know, nullify their property rights. So, and he's on his way out. So it's all the guys at the top. They're all in it together. And, you know, it's a mismanagement crisis that I think they're really scrambling to cover up with a lot of theatre that ends up hurting people because, you know, they conscript the population into this theatre. It interferes with people's lives. Like, I feel the worst for the young people, to be honest. Like, they've had their childhoods robbed of them. They have their futures robbed of them. They've had their health robbed from their education. So psychosocial developments. Now Carney's coming out and saying, you need to sacrifice more. During the Woods ban, I had a young volunteer, a guy who volunteers with me for my People's Party work. I ran in the 2025 election with the People's Party. And I have this really solid young guy who's just, like, the heart and soul of the People's Party here in Nova Scotia. And he had to cancel his camping trip in the summer. He had a big camping trip planned with his friends. And they're just young guys. They don't have money to stay at a fancy campground. They're just, they're going back woods. But then they couldn't because of the ban. So, you know, I think enough is enough already. There's a reason why we have these rights. Our rights are freedoms with which the government may not interfere unless they have a very good reason. And, you know, the way that we've arrived at these conclusions as to why we need these rights in place, I mean, there's been a lot of blood spilled over this. And in authoritarian societies where people are less free, they tend not to survive as well and not to live as well. So, and we are seeing that with all-cause mortality across the board, much of that, of course, being related to the vaccine. But all the more, yeah, all the more reason to respect our rights to liberty, our right to bodily autonomy, all the more reason to respect those rights because it really is a matter of survival for the population. You're being represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. (25:04 - 31:09) Now, I realise with live cases, there are certain things you cannot discuss, but what can you tell us about their strategy, where you're at with this process, and perhaps your own feeling of how it's going to play out? Well, I can talk a little bit, I think, about the strategy. I'm pretty confident. We have, you know, I don't want to jinx anything and I don't want to be too arrogant about this, but we have one judicial review in the private interest, my private interest, that is being prosecuted by the JCCF. And then we have another one in the public interest that the Canadian Constitution Foundation is prosecuting. They're both being heard on the 4th of February. So that's two separate lawsuits, one public, one private interest, two separate civil liberties organisations. I think that's about as good a shot as we're ever going to get. And in terms of the strategy, it's pretty much what I sketched out already. These mandates were not proportional. There's a number of things they could have done before banning my sneakers from the woods. They could have banned all sources of ignition. They could have even banned all-terrain vehicles. We're really big on all-terrain vehicles out here. And I don't really know what, you know, the risk is associated, risk of wildfire is associated with things like the exhaust or, you know, it is a source of combustion after all. I'm not sure where the risk really lies or how great a risk it is. But I would say that there is probably a logical connection between that and preventing wildfires, banning an ATV from the woods. So there were a number of measures that they could have put in place before they got all the way to a full-scale ban of all people. So it's not proportional. And also the logical connection is lacking because, you know, there is no logical connection between banning sneakers from the woods and preventing wildfires. And, you know, we have a Charter-guaranteed right to liberty into which they may not interfere unless it is proportional and logically connected to the goal. So that's the straightforward argument that we're going to make. We're also arguing some things on security of the person as well in light of mental health considerations in particular. I happen to be, you know, I mean, I'm a veteran of 20 years, Afghanistan and Iraq, so I have PTSD, surprise. And this is what I do. I mean, I have to get out and kind of put all that negative energy into something positive. It has a lot to do with the kind of activism that I engage in and things like that. And also I go out every single day with my Husky. I was out there this morning. He needs a good run, a good walk every single day. So I go for, you know, at least an hour every day. And it's always like in the woods and a really nice park by a stream, something like this to really kind of like forest bathe. And it helps my resiliency. It helps me to build resiliency. And geez, man, like going through the pandemic, like how many suicides do we have across the board? Drug overdoses, alcoholism, all of this stuff like you cannot, you cannot keep people like domestic animals. It's bad for their health and it's bad for their survival. So I'm prepared, we're preparing to make those arguments as well. Enough is enough already. Like these people need to be reined in. Right. Now they tried this in 2023, you fought back. They did it this year, you fought back. Given how you've described how they've changed their story now behind it all of, oh, well, you're, you know, you could be hurt, which I'm hoping there's very few people are dumb enough to buy that one. Do you think they'll try it again? Do you think they'll try it again next year? You know, I think they're definitely going to think twice this time. I think I was watching Tim Houston and his press conferences and he looked pretty rattled. And he, he was kind of making excuses, making reference to people walking their dogs in the woods and stuff like this. And I was like, yeah, he's watching. So I have been saying too, that this is the winning strategy. These are basically image obsessed yuppies that we're dealing with. You got to hit him in the image. That's what really hurts them. Like everything else, forget about it. They're just they're just going to shoo you away like the lowly peasant. But if you go after their public image and humiliate them, then, then they'll, they'll think twice. So he did say in one of the press conferences, he was asked, you know, are we going to be doing this again next year and the year after that? Because, you know, there's always a potential for another dry season and stuff. And he said something like, well, I can't predict the weather, so I don't know. And I did a video saying, well, what that means is if Tim Houston feels like it, yes. So that's not rule of law anymore. That's rule of man. He doesn't have a logical reason for this. There's no precedent for it. There's no process that he appears to be following. It's not on the basis of any evidence that has been made public. It's just because he's afraid. He's afraid of what's going to happen due to this utter mismanagement. And so he brings down that iron fist on the rest of us in order to appear as if he is doing something positive. So, so yeah, I mean, this, I think is, is, is characteristically totalitarian. It has everything to do. I think what I said in the video is like, whose feelings matter? I feel like going in the woods. He feels like keeping me out of it. So whose feelings matter here? This idea that the premier's feelings are more important than my feelings, that's antithetical to the principle of equality. And we all know that the guy whose feelings really matter are the dictators. So, so that's where we are right now. (31:09 - 31:24) And I think that, you know, a good slice of humble pie for some of these people is just what they need. Right. Jeff, you know, I've been fighting for our rights and freedoms myself the last five years. (31:24 - 31:41) And one of the things that often distresses me, especially with stories like yours, you're the only person doing it. This would have a lot more impact if there was another 20, 40, a hundred people who would show up and go, I'm going to go into the woods now. Give me a ticket. (31:42 - 35:31) Because you get a hundred of you going to court against the same thing. That's got a whole lot more chance of success. So given that you're the person who's had the courage to step up and do this, what final thoughts would you have for the viewers? You know, I, I hope that others will marshal their courage as well. I think that like, these are pretty unprecedented times. This is about the darkest period that we've ever lived through as a country. I don't really begrudge the general population for not recognising it soon enough. I think that they're starting to wake up now. I think that the woods ban really served to wake a lot more people up. It was easier to see just how ridiculous it all was. And there's still like, everything is an existential crisis now. It's one existential crisis to the next, to the next, to the next. And that is the way that the survival instincts, so it always feels like a matter of life and death. And that's why I get death threats for going into the woods. Like, how dare you put us all at risk? Just like when I was going around without a mask, it was how dare you put us all at risk? So this is how they're pitting us against each other. They're playing with their survival instinct. That's very dangerous territory. But the more they jump the shark, that's, that's what I keep saying, is just keep talking, guys. I just want you to keep doing these press conferences, because the more they talk, the more they jump the shark, and the more people are waking up to just how ridiculous these people really are. And, you know, in terms of, like I said, I don't really begrudge the general population for not coming together en masse and doing what I did. It's never been the case that the future is secured by, you know, collective action like that. It's generally the case that it's through individual action. And that's my read anyway. When I take the lessons of history, and I look at a lot of the stories, even from Christianity, I can see all of these different examples of individual acts of self-sacrifice that secure the future for humanity, whether you're talking about the model of Socrates, or Jesus Christ, or Martin Luther. That's, that's how, when times are at their darkest, that's how we find our way back into the light. The path to our salvation lies in self-sacrifice. So I think, I just try to tell myself that as easy as it is to get bitter, I try to remind myself that, you know, maybe I really am just one of those few exceptions, where I can, I have a kind of level of discernment that perhaps others lack. And that combined with, you know, some courage that I've really worked on over the course of my lifetime, that makes me a bit of an exception to the rule. So I should probably take some pride in that. Absolutely, you should, sir. Jeff, I'd like to personally thank you for your service to this country, not just for your 20 years with the Armed Forces, but for what you're doing right now, it's extremely important. And I too am very hopeful that this is going to work out, and with representation that you've got, that we're just going to make the Nova Scotia government look stupid, and all of this will go away. Yeah, me too. Thanks, thanks for having me, Will, and I appreciate what you do. This, this kind of work that you're doing with getting these stories out there is, is very important as well. I, I did a lot of the podcasting initially, but you know, you can't do everything. So I think now I'm out there making the stories. (35:32 - 35:35) But yeah, I definitely appreciate everything you're doing as well. Thank you, sir.