[00:00:09] Speaker 00: little musical chairs here. [00:00:12] Speaker 00: Next case is Ida Dickens versus the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 2015-7022, Mr. Stokes. [00:00:22] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court. [00:00:25] Speaker 01: The Veterans Court in this case erred when it excused the Board's failure to comply with the Secretary's regulation mandating that the Board suggest helpful evidence. [00:00:35] Speaker 01: The Court [00:00:35] Speaker 01: excused the requirement that under 38 CFR, section 3.103 C2, the requires VA to fully explain, I'm sorry, explain fully the issues and suggest the submission of evidence which the claimant may have overlooked and which would be of advantage to the claimant's position. [00:00:53] Speaker 04: Are we dealing with an issue of application of law to fact here? [00:00:58] Speaker 04: No, Your Honor. [00:00:59] Speaker 04: You're saying the Board, the Veterans Court, excused the Board's failure to [00:01:05] Speaker 04: explain everything to Mr. Dickens, and after that is Whittup, isn't that application of law and effect? [00:01:16] Speaker 01: No, because the regulations, there's a regulation here that is clear, and clearly it puts upon BA these legal duties, and it's clearly articulated in the actual regulations. [00:01:28] Speaker 01: So it's not really an application of the law and effect, it's an interpretation of 3.102. [00:01:32] Speaker 01: And in fact, Joint Appendix 121 [00:01:34] Speaker 01: The Board of Veterans' Appeals in the decision that went up to the Veterans Court articulated that it understood 3.103C and then shifted a burden over to Ms. [00:01:48] Speaker 01: Dickens to affirmatively plead it or affirmatively raise it or something like that. [00:01:53] Speaker 01: That's a misinterpretation of law. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: In this case, I was looking at it. [00:01:59] Speaker 04: I've got all these stickies here. [00:02:04] Speaker 04: this DD 214 question, how could anybody not know that that was a requirement? [00:02:15] Speaker 04: I mean, if you look at the correspondence going back and forth between the Dickens, both Mr. and Mrs., and the VA, it's clear that everybody knew that this had to be provided. [00:02:32] Speaker 01: Well, I think that gets into the factual [00:02:34] Speaker 01: situation here, and we would urge the court to reverse the Veterans Court's legal error that's about one sentence in its decision. [00:02:44] Speaker 01: But to answer your question... What is the legal error exactly? [00:02:46] Speaker 01: The legal error is at page four of the Joint Appendix, where the Veterans Court just cited to Carter and said, you didn't talk about 3.103 in the joint motion for remand, so you can't bring it up now. [00:02:59] Speaker 01: That's a legal error, because that is extending this issue exhaustion idea [00:03:04] Speaker 01: to something that was reasonably before the Board of Veterans' Appeals. [00:03:07] Speaker 01: And more importantly than that, it's a legal requirement of VA. [00:03:11] Speaker 01: So that's the legal error. [00:03:11] Speaker 01: But to answer your honor's questions about the factual situation, that's precisely why regulations... I'm sorry. [00:03:20] Speaker 04: Let me get that sentence again then. [00:03:22] Speaker 04: Sure. [00:03:22] Speaker 01: And I'll follow along with you. [00:03:25] Speaker 04: Page four of the appendix. [00:03:26] Speaker 01: Four of the joint appendix and four of the decision, too, actually. [00:03:30] Speaker 01: Under hearing officer's duties... [00:03:34] Speaker 01: The paragraph begins, at the outset, the court recognizes. [00:03:37] Speaker 01: And then on down it says, Mrs. Dickens, who was represented by counsel, did not raise this issue in the September 2012 Joint Motion for Remand. [00:03:46] Speaker 01: If Mrs. Dickens believed that the October 2011 hearing officer committed an error in the 2011 hearing, she should have raised that issue for inclusion in the terms of the September 2012 Joint Motion for Remand. [00:03:57] Speaker 01: That is a legal error. [00:03:58] Speaker 01: There is no pleading requirement [00:04:00] Speaker 01: that something that VA is required to do, indeed, something that VA recognized it was required to do, needed to be specifically put in that joint motion for remand. [00:04:10] Speaker 02: And that's the order. [00:04:11] Speaker 02: This gets back to, I think, the question we were asking your colleague. [00:04:14] Speaker 02: If there is a limited joint motion to remand and the board isn't required to address certain issues, then isn't it issue preclusion if [00:04:29] Speaker 02: that issue isn't raised by the veteran or the claimant here. [00:04:35] Speaker 01: No, because in a joint motion for remand, when the court vacates the whole decision, and I can get into my point. [00:04:42] Speaker 02: Can I ask you, I actually want you to clarify a factual thing for me, because I'm not quite sure what happened here. [00:04:48] Speaker 02: On remand, did she argue specifically to the board that the VA violated this duty to inform her and specifically say, [00:04:59] Speaker 02: the hearing officer failed to tell her she needed to get to support? [00:05:04] Speaker 02: So she didn't make that argument and hold back at the Veterans Court? [00:05:08] Speaker 01: Correct, John. [00:05:08] Speaker 01: That's my understanding of the record is what you're on. [00:05:10] Speaker 02: So why isn't? [00:05:11] Speaker 02: So this, to me, seems to fall within the classic issue preclusion rule, because you're making a legal argument for the first time on appeal. [00:05:20] Speaker 02: If we accept, and I know you all want us to get rid of issue preclusion, but let's assume we're not going to. [00:05:26] Speaker 02: If we accept that, doesn't this [00:05:29] Speaker 02: fall on the OK line, whereas your colleague's case may fall on the not OK line? [00:05:37] Speaker 01: No, this also falls on the not OK line. [00:05:40] Speaker 01: And the reason it falls on the not OK line is your honor is going down the line of reasoning that the Department of Veterans Affairs is using that Ms. [00:05:49] Speaker 01: Dickens has to raise this duty that VA has. [00:05:52] Speaker 01: There's a clear misunderstanding of the law. [00:05:54] Speaker 01: But that's the implication of issue preclusion, isn't it? [00:05:57] Speaker 01: In this context, Your Honor, no, because issue of preclusion, all of these cases that were cited, well most, not all, but a lot of the cases that were cited here dealt with situations outside of this pro-claimant and paternalistic, if you will, veterans context, where the Department of Veterans Affairs itself possesses these, not possesses, is mandated these duties. [00:06:20] Speaker 02: I don't disagree with that, and if this were a direct appeal, that would be fine. [00:06:24] Speaker 02: But assuming we allow issue of preclusion, [00:06:27] Speaker 02: in these remand cases. [00:06:31] Speaker 02: It seems like your position here would limit it to almost no circumstances whatsoever. [00:06:38] Speaker 02: Because this seems precisely the kind of case where you would have issue preclusion, where you have a board decision, you go up to the Veterans Court, it gets remanded for a variety of reasons, it goes back, and on appeal the second time, you raise an entirely new legal argument that's never been heard by the board below. [00:06:57] Speaker 01: When else would you, if that's not issue of preclusion, what is? [00:07:02] Speaker 01: Because this is not a new legal argument. [00:07:04] Speaker 01: The legal argument here, the issue was squarely before the board. [00:07:08] Speaker 01: But let's assume it is. [00:07:09] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:07:10] Speaker 01: If it is, is that a grounds for issue of preclusion? [00:07:13] Speaker 01: Well, under MG, it would be. [00:07:17] Speaker 01: But I believe that Scott is instructive here, and Scott has a wang, and it goes through this, and it cites MG and Comer and Robertson, all of these things. [00:07:25] Speaker 01: And so we wouldn't be up here to eviscerate Scott. [00:07:28] Speaker 01: We understand that's control and precedent. [00:07:30] Speaker 01: And Scott says that if you've got this procedural issue, all right, that can be subject to issue of conclusion. [00:07:37] Speaker 01: Majit discusses the legal issue idea. [00:07:41] Speaker 01: What Ms. [00:07:41] Speaker 01: Dickens has here is not a legal issue. [00:07:44] Speaker 01: What Ms. [00:07:45] Speaker 01: Dickens has here falls on what Scott discussed, which is the evidence gathering part of the line. [00:07:49] Speaker 01: There's the whole part of the Scott discussion that talks [00:07:52] Speaker 02: Evidentiary. [00:07:53] Speaker 02: But I thought you agreed that the error here you're asserting is a legal error, not an error to consider evidence. [00:08:01] Speaker 01: The legal error is that the court invoked issue exhaustion here from her asserting. [00:08:08] Speaker 02: OK, there's a bunch of different legal errors. [00:08:11] Speaker 02: But I thought the legal error you asserted to the Veterans Court was they failed in their duty to tell her what evidence she needed to submit. [00:08:19] Speaker 01: Which is an evidentiary question. [00:08:21] Speaker 01: which falls on that line of Scott. [00:08:24] Speaker 02: That's a legal burden they have, and you're saying they violated the law by doing that. [00:08:30] Speaker 02: Do you not see a distinction between this case and Bozeman? [00:08:33] Speaker 02: I don't want you to get into it too much, but it seems like there, the legal argument about the effective date was preserved all along, and the only thing that was added, or at least allegedly added as new things, was citation of a different piece of evidence. [00:08:49] Speaker 02: But here, it's not citation of different evidence. [00:08:52] Speaker 02: I mean, in fact, everybody knew what the evidence needed was. [00:08:55] Speaker 02: It was the DD-214. [00:08:57] Speaker 02: You're arguing on the first time that the veterans made a different legal error than the legal errors you identified on the first time. [00:09:08] Speaker 01: I think I'm getting to your honor's distinction. [00:09:11] Speaker 01: It's just that's not the way this practically, in my opinion, worked out. [00:09:16] Speaker 01: Because it's not a whole new legal theory. [00:09:18] Speaker 01: because the board always had these duties. [00:09:21] Speaker 01: Once the case was vacated at the court and the joint motion for remand did that. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: I understand that, but you never said until the second time on appeal that you never precisely identified the legal error the way you did on the second time appeal until then though. [00:09:39] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, that's very inarticulate, but I think you know what I'm saying. [00:09:43] Speaker 02: There's a factual situation and [00:09:48] Speaker 02: You argued error in the board's decision and got a remand for various reasons. [00:09:52] Speaker 02: And then on the appeal, second appeal, for the first time, you said that that RO decision contained some other legal error that you had never identified before. [00:10:01] Speaker 01: For the first time to the Veterans Court, that time around, and that's what I think is confusing about this case, is that the way that the Veterans Court looked at it and the way VA is looking at it is, this was, whoa, whoa, whoa, you just brought this up now? [00:10:14] Speaker 01: But that's really not the way to look at it in this context, because there was a vacator, and then you get a fresh new board decision in this context. [00:10:23] Speaker 01: It's fresh, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals has to comply under 7104A with all of its legal obligations. [00:10:29] Speaker 01: This isn't something like in Scott, where the veteran had to articulate that he wanted a hearing. [00:10:35] Speaker 01: That was in Scott. [00:10:36] Speaker 01: The veteran doesn't have to do anything here. [00:10:39] Speaker 01: The board has to comply with its regulatory and statutory duties. [00:10:43] Speaker 01: And so it's not really a new legal argument. [00:10:45] Speaker 02: You can limit the issue of preclusion rule to instances where the veteran specifically has to take an affirmative step to do something, as opposed to where VA's failure to do something might be illegal. [00:10:57] Speaker 01: I think that's what the case law would support. [00:10:59] Speaker 01: OK. [00:10:59] Speaker 01: If there are no further questions, I'll reserve the balance of my time. [00:11:03] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:11:03] Speaker 00: We will save it for you, Mr. Stoltz. [00:11:05] Speaker 00: Welcome back, Mr. Hoffman. [00:11:08] Speaker 03: May it please the court? [00:11:14] Speaker 03: Well, I think this case is actually on all fours with Scott, the court's recent decision subsequent to our briefing. [00:11:21] Speaker 02: Could you address the distinction I think your friend just made, because I think it's an interesting one. [00:11:27] Speaker 02: I mean, this one to me seems to fall on the other line, that they are raising a legal issue for the first time on appeal. [00:11:34] Speaker 02: Or a procedural issue, as Scott framed it. [00:11:36] Speaker 02: And therefore, it falls within the classic. [00:11:42] Speaker 02: definition of issue of preclusion that we've approved. [00:11:45] Speaker 02: But your friend does make an interesting point that when a board decision is vacated, you know, then you're starting all over, essentially. [00:11:54] Speaker 02: And doesn't the VA have an obligation to do all these things? [00:11:58] Speaker 02: And the only thing that should be precluded is when the veteran fails to take an affirmative step that he or she is required to do. [00:12:09] Speaker 03: First of all, I don't think that [00:12:11] Speaker 03: I read the decision as being vacated here. [00:12:14] Speaker 03: I read the decision as having finally decided lack of evidence to support the combat status. [00:12:21] Speaker 03: And that the remand was, and when you read the JMR, it recognizes itself that DD-214 is missing and nobody has it. [00:12:30] Speaker 03: So that the remand is actually, well, there was a reasons and bases error because the board doesn't explain what other evidence other than the DD-214 might have been available to support [00:12:41] Speaker 03: finding of combat status. [00:12:43] Speaker 03: So I don't believe that the remand in this case, because as I recall, the order says remand in accordance with the JMR. [00:12:53] Speaker 03: I don't think they even use the word vacator in that order. [00:12:56] Speaker 03: So hypothetically, though, it does raise a different question. [00:13:00] Speaker 03: If you can eliminate entirely the earlier round, are we back to square one? [00:13:06] Speaker 03: And I think that there's got to be some kind of reasonableness [00:13:11] Speaker 03: tool that's used by the Veterans Court in reviewing for error what the board did the second time where the situation like this case say, say this case has the order with the bakator and you know the start over presumption. [00:13:27] Speaker 03: But you have 12 years of correspondence between the parties in which both sides say neither one of them has the DD214 [00:13:33] Speaker 03: And even at the very hearing, the facts are not good here. [00:13:36] Speaker 02: I mean, this is another case like the last one where it seems like it would have been far easier and not subject to attack on appeal if the Veterans Court would have just said... This issue's been exhausted. [00:13:48] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:13:49] Speaker 02: The fact that the DD214 was necessary was known to everybody throughout this case. [00:13:55] Speaker 02: And the argument that the VA failed to tell her that is, at best, harmless. [00:14:01] Speaker 02: Well, yeah, especially considering the very board wouldn't be here reviewing that. [00:14:07] Speaker 03: I mean, well, I've already said in the papers about the very board hearing and the interplay between the judges demonstrates. [00:14:15] Speaker 02: Can I ask you that distinction that your friend's making? [00:14:20] Speaker 02: I'm just wondering if there's any legal [00:14:23] Speaker 02: reason that we would make that decision, distinction in terms of applying an issue preclusion rule. [00:14:29] Speaker 02: Assuming that we continue to agree that one has one, I think we have to because that's what Scott says, why would we, is there a legal basis for distinguishing between legal arguments that the veterans fail to do something that he or she affirmably had to do versus the BA's obligations? [00:14:54] Speaker 02: Even within the confines of leadership? [00:14:57] Speaker 02: I don't see any. [00:14:57] Speaker 02: I'm sure that you're trying to tell me other reasons on appeal, but it seems to me that the whole point of issue preclusion is to prohibit people generally, with some discretion, from raising new issues on a second appeal that nobody has ever brought up before. [00:15:19] Speaker 03: And so putting my claimant hat on here, [00:15:24] Speaker 03: which will be shocking to many people. [00:15:27] Speaker 03: It seems like the first concern is from these cases, and I'm going back to Carter as well, are we in joining with the secretary on these joint remands, precluding ourselves from raising certain issues? [00:15:39] Speaker 03: I think the answer to that is not necessarily no, because two reasons you can, A, obviously in Bozeman and in Carter, you had your JMR which said, whatever happens, it's wide open. [00:15:51] Speaker 03: Plus you have the existing precedent from the Veterans Court, which says the same thing notwithstanding what the JMR might say. [00:15:56] Speaker 02: So in this case, despite the limited JMR, if Mrs. Dickens had said to the board on remand, there was error in the RO decision because they never informed me as they were required to do that I had to supply it rather than them get it. [00:16:14] Speaker 02: I think that would have been proper for the Veterans Court to consider, and they shouldn't have used issue preclusion if she'd raised it at the board. [00:16:21] Speaker 03: I think they probably would have held differently. [00:16:23] Speaker 03: I think because had she raised the issue as weak of an issue as it is, the board should have said something in response to it. [00:16:30] Speaker 03: And so had she done so and not said anything, the Veterans Court might have simply said, no, they erred, but it was harmless given the record. [00:16:38] Speaker 03: But I do think that would have provided a basis for the Veterans Court to say something about the failure of the board to do it. [00:16:44] Speaker 03: Here, obviously, she had the opportunity to do so and didn't take advantage of it. [00:16:48] Speaker 03: And we think this one's all for on Scott, because however you slice it, Scott involved a failure to recognize that he had requested a hearing, which the court turned procedural, which effectively, I don't see a difference between challenging the denial of a request to have a hearing and something about the hearing that actually took place. [00:17:08] Speaker 03: There's still procedural questions that may or may not lead to something. [00:17:13] Speaker 03: But in this case, obviously, we don't think there was any error at all with respect to the hearing judge or anything he did during the hearing. [00:17:23] Speaker 04: Sorry, one thing to pick up on it. [00:17:25] Speaker 04: Looking at what it says in the joint motion for remand, it says the parties respectfully move the court to partially vacate the March 26, 2012 board decision to the extent it denied entitlement [00:17:42] Speaker 03: Oh, right. [00:17:43] Speaker 04: The benefits for PTSD for a few group benefits. [00:17:46] Speaker 04: Does that make any difference? [00:17:47] Speaker 03: In my mind, what they're saying is, in response to my answer about what the court did, no. [00:18:00] Speaker 03: I don't think when you send it back, I think that gets to the same problem you have with respect to issue preclusion, is this really is an issue. [00:18:10] Speaker 03: This is a challenge that hadn't been raised before. [00:18:13] Speaker 03: And I think it's subject to the same analysis that the court performed in Scott. [00:18:19] Speaker 04: You're saying even if this is a vacatur in court, you're in the context of a case that's been ongoing. [00:18:27] Speaker 03: Yeah, what they're trying to do here is to undo the decision that found that he hadn't established his combat status. [00:18:36] Speaker 03: So that's the aspect of the decision that's being challenged. [00:18:40] Speaker 03: Frankly, if you really want to parse [00:18:42] Speaker 03: history of the case, one could argue that the existence or whoever had the DD-214 wasn't even at issue anywhere. [00:18:50] Speaker 03: The original board hearing was really all about, I mean they all agree, the parties all agree throughout that the DD-214 nobody has. [00:18:58] Speaker 03: So the question has always been what can we find in lieu of the missing DD-214? [00:19:04] Speaker 03: And that's what the board dealt with the first time to the dissatisfaction of the claimant which the secretary conceded probably could have been better [00:19:11] Speaker 03: analyzed. [00:19:12] Speaker 03: So that was what the remand was about. [00:19:14] Speaker 03: And then after that, and despite the fact that this procedural challenge could have been raised. [00:19:21] Speaker 02: Somehow the DD-214 miraculously resurfaces. [00:19:25] Speaker 02: Is she barred from revisiting her claim? [00:19:28] Speaker 03: No. [00:19:29] Speaker 03: No, in fact, if anybody were to find the DD-214, because it's a government document, I think she probably has arguments about effective dates that go back under the 3.156C. [00:19:40] Speaker 03: to the original claim. [00:19:41] Speaker 03: The problem here is I think that a lot of the concern stems from the fact that at all stages people described the missing DD-214 as presumed destroyed by the 1973 National Personal Record Center. [00:19:55] Speaker 03: I mean, I think it's clear that it was, but just people's way of describing it because it's missing. [00:19:59] Speaker 03: They couldn't find it. [00:20:01] Speaker 03: The personnel people don't have it. [00:20:03] Speaker 03: That's how they describe the effects of the 1973 fire. [00:20:07] Speaker 03: And I'm totally speculating here about why the issue's still hanging around. [00:20:11] Speaker 03: But the bottom line is, you know, Ms. [00:20:13] Speaker 03: Dickens told the board judge at the very hearing that she didn't have it and followed up the next day with a letter saying, if you have it, send it to me. [00:20:20] Speaker 03: So there can't be any area. [00:20:21] Speaker 03: Are there any other questions? [00:20:24] Speaker 00: Thank you, Mr. Hocky. [00:20:27] Speaker 00: Mr. Stoltz has four minutes of rebuttal if he needs it. [00:20:35] Speaker 01: Your Honors, [00:20:37] Speaker 01: Looking at the language of the joint motion for partial remand may help, and I'm hoping to help answer Judge Hughes's concerns here and talk about how this fits. [00:20:49] Speaker 01: I guess we both think Scott helps us. [00:20:52] Speaker 01: But I think that this fits in the evidentiary side of Scott. [00:20:54] Speaker 01: And the reason that I say that is because there is a vacator here. [00:20:57] Speaker 01: And it partially vacates the board decision to the extent it denied entitlement to benefits for PTSD for accrued benefits purposes. [00:21:04] Speaker 01: And that it specifically said we're not pursuing, the appellant is not pursuing, [00:21:08] Speaker 01: benefits on the bilateral shoulder wounds. [00:21:11] Speaker 01: That's gone. [00:21:11] Speaker 01: The bilateral shoulder wounds has been dispensed with. [00:21:15] Speaker 01: But the entire issue of entitlement for benefits... Let me ask you, though. [00:21:18] Speaker 02: I mean, this is all about the DD214, right? [00:21:21] Speaker 02: If nobody has it, then what difference does it make whether the VA specifically told her she had to supply it or they'd supply it? [00:21:29] Speaker 02: Because nobody has it. [00:21:31] Speaker 01: It may not ultimately make a difference, but that's not what the Veterans Court said. [00:21:35] Speaker 01: The Veterans Court said that the Board of Veterans Appeals was excused from its duties. [00:21:39] Speaker 01: And I do think that it's important to talk about the fact that the record is, and I'm not going to dispute how my friend reads the record, but the record is really, you know, we thought you had it. [00:21:52] Speaker 01: Ms. [00:21:52] Speaker 01: Dickens and Mr. Dickens both kind of told VA, we thought you guys had it. [00:21:55] Speaker 01: We took it to you once before. [00:21:58] Speaker 01: This is all factual. [00:21:59] Speaker 01: But it does appear that it burned up in the fire. [00:22:01] Speaker 01: The facts are really not in dispute in this case. [00:22:04] Speaker 01: That makes the board's duties all the more real here. [00:22:09] Speaker 01: If the Board of Veterans Appeals had said, have you checked the Brooklyn VAMC? [00:22:13] Speaker 01: Have you gone and maybe found other ways to recreate the DD214 by government records? [00:22:18] Speaker 01: I realize this is an accrued benefits context, but by government records. [00:22:22] Speaker 01: Giving her the heads up of where the Board of Veterans Appeals was going here is their duty. [00:22:28] Speaker 01: And to try to put the cart before the horse and have [00:22:31] Speaker 01: counsel or an unrepresented person, try to foresee every reason that the board is going to use and list all those reasons in a joint motion for partial remand or a joint motion for remand. [00:22:43] Speaker 01: It's not realistic in this system. [00:22:44] Speaker 01: And again, I respect and understand all of the factual problems in this case and some of the things about this DD-214. [00:22:52] Speaker 01: That's not what the Veterans Court did though. [00:22:55] Speaker 01: The Veterans Court had a one to two sentence statement [00:22:58] Speaker 01: and cited to the Carter case, which this court has already overruled in part, and which we're asking for today to overrule the broad language in there saying that these things have to be specifically pleaded. [00:23:12] Speaker 01: There is no specific pleading requirement when the Department of Veterans Affairs has the duty to suggest evidence, gather evidence, or something like that. [00:23:21] Speaker 01: What was vacated here was accrued benefits pursuant to PTSD. [00:23:27] Speaker 01: That was all vacated. [00:23:29] Speaker 01: So now the Board of Veterans' Appeals has to adjudicate again, and they have to adjudicate it while following all of the relevant law under 7104A. [00:23:38] Speaker 01: It didn't do that here because it didn't comply with its legal duty under 3.103. [00:23:45] Speaker 01: It even said that in its decision, and for some reason said that Ms. [00:23:49] Speaker 01: Dickens had to affirmatively plead that. [00:23:51] Speaker 01: That's not her burden. [00:23:52] Speaker 01: It's the Department of Veterans Affairs. [00:23:53] Speaker 01: Respectfully ask the court to reverse the lower court. [00:23:56] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:23:57] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:24:03] Speaker 01: All rise. [00:24:03] Speaker 01: The Honorable Court is adjourned until tomorrow morning. [00:24:08] Speaker 01: It's an o'clock a.m.