>> WHEN YOU ARE SIGNING UP FOR SOMETHING NEW, ARE YOU READING THE FINE PRINT ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PAGE?

MOST OF US CHECK OUT THE BOX, GUILTY AS CHARGED, OUR NEXT GUEST SAYS WE SHOULD BE MORE VIGILANT, A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR AND FOUNDER OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY PROJECT, AN ORGANIZATION CHALLENGING CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER AND JOINS MICHEL MARTIN TO DISCUSS HOW COMPANIES ARE QUIETLY LIMITING AMERICANS ACCESS TO THE COURTS IN ORDER TO EVADE ACCOUNTABILITY.

AS HE HIGHLIGHTS IN HIS NEW BOOK.

>> THANK YOU FOR TALKING WITH US ONCE AGAIN.

TODAY, WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF US DO NOT THINK ABOUT, WHEN YOU OPEN A NEW CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT, OR YOU MAY BE OPEN A BANK ACCOUNT, IF YOU SIGN UP FOR A STREAMING SERVICE, YOU GO TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND HIT THE THING, YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THAT THAT WE ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT, MOST OF US ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT, WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF ?

>> A PROFOUND CONSEQUENCE, YOU ARE SIGNING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO THE PUBLIC JUSTICE SYSTEM IF A COMPANY HARMS YOU.

WHAT YOU ARE CERTAINLY SIGNING IS A FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, WHAT IT MEANS, IF ONE OF THESE COMPANIES HARMS YOU, DEFRAUD YOU, EVEN INJURES OR KILLS SOMEBODY YOU LOVE, YOU CANNOT SUE THEM IN PUBLIC COURT .

YOU HAVE TO GO TO A PRIVATE ALTERNATIVE TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM CALLED FORCED ARBITRATION WHERE THE JUDGE CALLED AN ARBITRATOR WILL MOST LIKELY, THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE , WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE COMPANY YOU ARE SUING.

>> HOW DOES THAT WORK ?

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A NAÏVE QUESTION BUT, HOW IS THAT LEGAL ?

>> THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT SO, THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT OF 1925 THAT WAS MEANT FOR VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSES, TO BIND SOPHISTICATED PARTIES, MERCHANTS THAT HAD DISPUTES WITH ONE ANOTHER INTO ARBITRATION SO IT WOULD BE FASTER AND MORE INFORMAL THAN USING THE ORDINARY COURSE SYSTEM .

BEGINNING IN THE 1980S, CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT REINTERPRETED THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT AND EXPANDING IT BEYOND WHAT THE HISTORY OR TEXT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED TO BIND US INTO ARBITRATION WHEN WE ARE CONSUMERS, WHEN WE ARE EMPLOYEES, WHEN WE SIGN THOSE CLICK TO ACCEPT CONTRACTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT , NONE OF THAT WAS IN THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE BUT OVER SEVERAL YEARS AND DECADES, THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPANDED THIS PRACTICE TO ENCOMPASS VIRTUALLY ALL OF US .

YOUR BOOK IS TITLED WHEN COMPANIES RUN THE COURTS, A BLUNT ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION, IS THAT YOUR VIEW, COMPANIES NOW RUN THE COURTS?

>> THE SPECIFIC TITLE REFERS TO THE SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM WHERE BUSINESSES OFTEN PAY FOR THE EFFECTIVE JUDGE.

NOT SURPRISING, THE STATISTICS SHOW THAT OVERWHELMINGLY COMPANIES WIN, CONSUMERS WIN 89% OF THE TIME IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT BUT BEFORE --WITH ARBITRATION, 20% OR 30% OF THE TIME THEY WIN, NOT A LAWYER, MAY BE LESS THAN 10% OF THE TIME, IN A REAL WAY, COMPANIES DOMINATE THE FORCED ARBITRATION SYSTEM.

>> GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW.

YOU SAY A MAN NAMED JEFFREY PICCOLO, WHO WENT ON A VACATION TO DISNEY WORLD WITH HIS WIFE, WHO HAD SEVERE FOOD ALLERGIES.

THEY WENT TO A RESTAURANT AND WERE ASSURED HER ALLERGIES WOULD BE ACCOMMODATED.

WHAT HAPPENED THEN?

>> ACCORDING TO THE SUBSEQUENT ALLEGATION, HIS WIFE HAD SEVERE ALLERGIES, WERE REPEATEDLY ASSURED THE FOOD WOULD BE OKAY, AND IT WASN'T, AND CONTAINED ALLERGENS.

NOT ONLY DID SHE HAVE ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK, SHE DIED.

WHEN PICCOLO SUED DISNEY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH, DISNEY MOVED TO COMPEL HIM INTO FORCED ARBITRATION, A SYSTEM WHERE THE COMPANY, DISNEY, WOULD PAY FOR THE ARBITRATOR, AND THEY MOVED TO DO SO BECAUSE HE SIGNED AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WHEN HE SIGNED UP FOR HIS DISNEY+ ACCOUNT SEVERAL YEARS EARLIER.

IN THAT SPECIFIC CASE, THE PUBLICITY FROM THAT STORY WAS SO OVERWHELMING AND OVERWHELMING BAD, DISNEY BACKED OUT.

THE LAW WAS ON DISNEY'S SIDE.

AND EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE OF COMPANIES COMPELLING PEOPLE INTO ARBITRATION WHEN THEY ARE SUING OVER RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, OVER THE MURDER OF THEIR SON, THEIR OWN RAPE, OR WRONGFUL BIRTH, ALL HAVE BEEN COMPELLED INTO ARBITRATION.

>> AFTER THIS BACKLASH, DISNEY ISSUED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, "AT DISNEY, WE STRIVE TO PUT HUMANITY ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND THE CASE WARRANTED A GENERAL APPROACH TO --SENSITIVE APPROACH TO EXPEDITE THE RESOLUTION FOR THE FAMILY.

ANOTHER CASE IN THE BOOK WHERE A WOMAN WHO WAS A CREWMEMBER ON A CRUISE SHIP ACCEPTED AN INVITATION FROM A COLLEAGUE, TO JOIN HIM FOR CHRISTMAS , SHE WOKE UP IN PAIN, REALIZED SOMETHING HAPPENED, REALIZED SHE HAD BEEN RAPED, ACCORDING TO YOUR ACCOUNT, THE CREWMEMBER ADMITTED HE HAD RAPED HER, SHE WAS DISCOURAGED FROM GOING TO THE POLICE OR FILING A COMPLAINT, THEN WHAT HAPPENED ?

>> ACCORDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS, THE WOMAN WAS RAPED, CREW MEMBER ADMITTED IT AND THEY DISCOURAGED HER FROM GOING TO THE POLICE, SHE SUES THE CRUISE SHIP COMPANY AND HAD A BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND COMPELLED INTO ARBITRATION, NOT JUST ARBITRATION BUT PRIVATE ARBITRATION IN THE PHILIPPINES, HER OWN COUNTRY, WE DO NOT KNOW THE OUTCOME OF ARBITRATION BECAUSE ARBITRATION IS OVERWHELMINGLY KEPT SECRET.

CONGRESS DID MAKE ONE MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENT IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, TO EXEMPT ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND HARASSMENT FROM FORCED ARBITRATION.

VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE LAW CAN STILL BE ARBITRATED, WHETHER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A TERMINATION, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, OR , LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS, IF SOMEBODY YOU LOVE DIES, YOU MAY NEVERTHELESS HAVE TO ARBITRATE A CASE AS SERIOUS AS THAT.

>> THERE IS A HUGE POWER IMBALANCE THAT MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THEY WILL BE PUT INTO FORCED ARBITRATION, IF THEY DO, THE ARBITER IS GENERALLY SOMEBODY PAID BY THE COMPANY.

WHAT IS THE REASONING BY THE COURT ?

THE WHOLE POINT OF A COURT SYSTEM IS TO BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS .

WHAT WAS THE REASONING AND ALLOWING IT TO BE EXPANDED IN SUCH A WAY?

>> I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE WAS A STRONG TEXTUAL OR LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR EXPANDING THIS AND THERE HAS BEEN BROAD CRITICISM OF THE REASONING IN A LOT OF THESE DECISIONS.

I THINK IT BOILS DOWN TO A REAL ANIMUS TOWARDS CONSUMER AND EMPLOYEE LAWSUITS WHICH MANY CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES SEE AS FRIVOLOUS, AND AGAINST CLASS ACTION SPECIFICALLY BEING THIS IDEA THAT, RATHER THAN EACH PERSON SIMILARLY HARMED BRINGING THEIR OWN CASE, EVERYBODY EXPERIENCED THE SAME HARM CAN GO UNDER ONE UMBRELLA WHICH SAVES COSTS, AND THAT HAS HAD ENORMOUS IMPACT IN AMERICAN HISTORY WITH ROE V WADE, BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS A CLASS-ACTION, BUT THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES HAVE A REAL AVERSION TO CLASS-ACTION AND FORCED ARBITRATION WAS A WAY TO POTENTIALLY KILL THAT IN A SPECIFIC WAY .

WHICH WAS THAT MANY OF THESE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS REQUIRE YOU, NOT JUST TO ARBITRATE YOUR CLAIM, BUT TO DO SO INDIVIDUALLY, EACH PERSON HARMED HAS TO BRING THEIR OWN CASE, WHY THAT MATTERS IS, THINK ABOUT THE WAYS A COMPANY MAY HARM YOU, $30 FEES THAT A BANK MAY ADD THAT DO NOT SEEM TO MAKE SENSE OR DO NOT SEEM FAIR, THEY CAN ONLY BE RESOLVED THROUGH CLASS- ACTION, IF YOU CAN KILL THE CLASS ACTION AND FORCE PEOPLE TO PURSUE THEIR CLAIMS INDIVIDUALLY, THAT MEANS IT BECOMES ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYBODY TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE.

TO VIEWERS WHO FEEL LIKE COMPANIES ARE INCREASINGLY SKIMMING THEM OR INCREASINGLY BEYOND THE REACH OF THE LAW, FORCED ARBITRATION IS A LARGE REASON WHY THAT IS THE CASE .

>> THERE IS NO RECOURSE, THAT IS HOW THEY CAN AFFORD TO GET AWAY WITH TERRIBLE CUSTOMER SERVICE.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ?

>> EXACTLY, A CHANGE OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS, IF YOU SEE COMPANIES BEHAVING DIFFERENTLY TO THEIR CUSTOMERS THAN THEY DID A GENERATION AGO, IT IS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE EITHER CONSUMERS OR EMPLOYEES AT ALL BUT THE BIGGEST HARMS.

THIS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, PROSECUTORS , THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND SO FORTH, THESE ARE DRAMATICALLY OVERWHELMED INSTITUTIONS , EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT, THINK ABOUT THE CURRENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOES NOT SEEM TO SHOW A GREAT DEAL OF INTEREST OR EMPATHY TO ORDINARY CONSUMERS OR EMPLOYEES ON ISSUES LIKE THIS.

>> HOW DID YOU COME TO SEE THIS ?

HOW DID THE STORY COME TO YOU?

AS YOU SAID, HARD TO KNOW THERE IS A PATTERN ?

>> FOR LAWYERS, FORCED ARBITRATION IS A BIG PART OF OUR LIVES BECAUSE IT HAS STOPPED CLASS ACTIONS AND THE ABILITY TO GET JUSTICE, WHAT BROUGHT ME SPECIFICALLY TO THE STORY, MY BACKGROUND AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ANTITRUST AND WHITE- COLLAR WORK, I WROTE A BOOK CRITICAL OF PRIVATE EQUITY A FEW YEARS AGO, TALKING TO MANY NONLAWYERS THROUGH THAT WORK , I GOT THE SENSE THAT MANY PEOPLE, MOST PEOPLE FEEL THAT THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS PROFOUNDLY STACKED AGAINST THEM AND REALLY GEARED TOWARDS THE CORPORATIONS AND THE RICH AND POWERFUL.

AS A PRACTICING LAWYER, I WANTED TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE RIGHT, BUT EXPLAINED IT IN A WAY THAT WAS SPECIFIC SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE REAL MECHANISMS BY WHICH THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND THE LAW BENDS TOWARD THE POWERFUL AND HOW WE MAY BEND IT BACK TO SOMETHING MORE JUST.

>> IF CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED, WHY AM I GIVING THESE POSTERS TELLING ME I AM ELIGIBLE FOR $30 FROM THIS BANK I DO NOT REMEMBER GETTING OVERCHARGED BY?

>> THE BANK EXAMPLE IS INTERESTING BECAUSE THAT IS INCREASINGLY UNCOMMON, YOU LOOK AT WHERE FORCED ARBITRATION IS MOST COMMON, IN THE MOST HIGHLY CONCENTRATED INDUSTRIES, CONSUMER FINANCE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AIRLINES, SO FORTH, YOU MAY BE GETTING THE OCCASIONAL POSTCARD ABOUT A BANK THAT MAYBE YOU HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH 10 YEARS AGO, YOU DID NOT REMEMBER YOU HAD IT, BANKS ARE INCREASINGLY -- USE FORCED ARBITRATION , THERE WAS A BROAD MOVEMENT TO TRY TO STOP FORCED ARBITRATION IN THE CONSUMER FINANCE INDUSTRY SPECIFICALLY, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WAS ENORMOUSLY EFFECTIVE IN DEFEATING THAT.

I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS THE REMNANTS OF A SYSTEM WHERE SOPHISTICATED COMPANIES DID NOT HAVE FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS, AND INCREASINGLY, ALL THE BUSINESSES WERE SIGNING UP FOR, TERMS OF SERVICE YOU SIGN UP FOR, OVERWHELMINGLY HAVE FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS TO SUCH AN EXTENT THEY ARE FAR MORE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS IN AMERICA THAT AMERICANS, IT WILL BE MUCH HARDER FOR YOU IN THE FUTURE WHEN ONE OF THESE COMPANIES HARMS YOU.

>> LET'S SAY YOU DO NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THIS FORCED ARBITRATION , I HAVE A MEMORY OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH I HAD A CREDIT CARD SOME YEARS AGO AND THEY SENT ME THIS FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT SAYING YOU CAN OPT OUT, SO I DID I DO NOT ACCEPT IT , NOT THAT HE HAD PLANNED TO SUE THEM, BUT WHY SHOULD I DO THAT?

THEY CANCELED MY ACCOUNT.

FINE.

I WON'T SHOP THERE ANYMORE >> PEOPLE WILL GRAVITATE TO THE COMPANY'S THAT DO NOT HAVE FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY ALL DO.

EVEN IF YOU WANT TO OPT OUT, THERE IS INTERESTING RESEARCH SHOWING THAT MANY TIMES THOSE COMPANIES THAT OFFER OPT OUTS IN THE CONTRACT DO NOT HAVE PROCEDURES AND YOU CANNOT DO IT EVEN IF THE CONTRACT SAYS YOU CAN, MOST IMPORTANTLY BUT NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT REQUIRES ANY OF THESE OPT OUT PROCEDURES AND MANY TIMES , WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE CLICK TO ACCEPT AGREEMENTS, YOU LITERALLY DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.

I ALWAYS SAY, THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT ETHICAL CONSUMERS , NOT GOING TO SOLVE PARTLY BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE, EVEN IF WE DID, THE NUMBER OF TIMES WE WOULD HAVE TO FIX THIS IS OVERWHELMING AND MORE THAN ANY NORMAL PERSON CAN DO, MORE THAN I COULD DO, WE WILL HAVE TO SOLVE THIS COLLECTIVELY.

>> BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, I WILL ASK YOU, WE HAVE ALL SEEN STORIES ABOUT THE PERSON WHO SUES THE FAST FOOD COMPANY BECAUSE THEY SAID THEIR COFFEE WAS TOO HOT, THESE STORIES THAT SUGGEST COURTS ARE OVERBURDENED WITH RIDICULOUS CASES.

>> UNDERSTANDABLE SOMEBODY MAY HAVE THE BELIEF THAT WE ARE DELUGED WITH FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS BURDENING OUR COURT SYSTEM AND COMPANIES, I WOULD IMPLORE YOU, TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SPENT TO GET YOU TO HAVE THAT BELIEF.

THERE HAS BEEN A MULTI-DECADE-LONG EFFORT TO CREATE THIS IDEA THAT THERE WAS A LITIGATION EXPLOSION IN THE UNITED STATES.

WHAT RESEARCH SUGGESTS, THAT LITIGATION EXPLOSION MAY NEVER HAVE OCCURRED.

MANY OF THE MOST FAMOUS STORIES THAT WE HAVE ABOUT THIS ARE MUCH MORE COMPLICATED AND VASTLY MORE PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY ON INSPECTION THAT WE GET IN THE SOUNDBITES OR IN THE CULTURAL MEANS.

THE PERSON SUING OVER HOT COFFEE WAS A NATIONAL JOKE IN THE 1990S, THE WOMAN WHO SUED, WAS IN HER LATE 70s, WHEN SHE SPILLED THE COFFEE, SHE GOT THIRD DEGREE BURNS ON HER THIGHS, BUTTOCKS, HAD TO HAVE SKIN GRAFTS FOR TWO WEEKS AND PHYSICAL THERAPY FOR YEARS, SHE TRIED TO SETTLE FOR $50,000 AND McDONALD'S REFUSED , ONLY AFTER MULTIPLE REFUSALS FROM McDONALD'S THEY WENT TO COURT AND REVEALED THAT THE COMPANY HAD HUNDREDS OF SIMILAR BURN ALLEGATIONS AND THE $2.

7 MILLION AWARD, I BELIEVE IT WAS, WAS TWO DAYS OF COFFEE SALES FOR McDONALD'S AND MEANT TO BE A DETERRENT FOR McDONALD'S OR DOING THESE OVERHEATING POLICIES .

IT GOES TO SHOW THAT THOSE SORTS OF CASES MEANT TO DETER COMPANIES FROM BROAD, SYSTEMIC HARM ARE INCREASINGLY IMPOSSIBLE .

>> WHAT IS THE FIX?

>> I DO NOT THINK ETHICAL CONSUMERISM, READING CONTRACTS CAREFULLY WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM AND IN MANY WAYS WE CANNOT OPT OUT.

IT WILL HAVE TO BE LEGISLATION.

CONGRESS IS PARALYZED ON THESE ISSUES, IT WILL HAPPEN IN STATES AND LOCALITIES, IN PARTICULAR, CALIFORNIA, MARYLAND AND OTHERS HAVE DONE GOOD WORK PASSING LEGISLATION TO FORCED ARBITRATION WARFARE AND MORE TRANSPARENT, MORE LIKE A REGULAR COURT SYSTEM.

CALIFORNIA HAS PASSED A IMPORTANT LAW CALLED THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT WHICH ALLOWS PEOPLE WHO ARE ORDINARILY BOUND BY FORCED ARBITRATION WITH THEIR EMPLOYER TO SUE INSTEAD ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOUR DEPARTMENT WHICH IS NOT BOUND BY FORCED ARBITRATION.

DELEGATING THE STATE AUTHORITY TO EMPLOYEES.

WE REALLY NEED LEGISLATION LIKE THAT IN OTHER STATES AND ON OTHER ISSUES, NOT JUST EMPLOYMENT BUT DISCRIMINATION, ANTITRUST CONSUMER FRAUD, ENVIRONMENTAL HARMS, IF WE DO THAT, ARBITRATION WILL BECOME A MUCH SMALLER PART OF OUR LIVES AND HOPEFULLY COMPANIES WILL BEHAVE BETTER.

>> GIVEN THIS IS A MULTI-DECADE- LONG TREND YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED IN YOUR REPORTING, DO YOU GENERALLY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH BACK AGAINST IT AND EQUALIZE THINGS?

>> SPECIFIC THINGS AND A BROADER ANSWER, I DO HAVE A LOT OF OPTIMISM ON THE SUPREME COURT, INTERESTING RESEARCH SHOWING THE LESS SALIENT ISSUES , THINGS THAT NOT VOTING RIGHTS, ABORTION RIGHTS, THE SUPREME COURT IS SURPRISINGLY RESPONSIVE TO PUBLIC OPINION AND THE MORE THAT WE CAN RAISE THE SALIENCE OF FORCED ARBITRATION, THE MORE THE SUPREME COURT EXPANSIONIST AGENDA CAN BE NOT NECESSARILY STOPPED BUT SLOWED .

I THINK WE CAN USE THAT TIME TO PASS THE LEGISLATION WE NEED I HAVE A LEVEL OF OPTIMISM BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN STATES ALREADY DO SO.

MORE GENERALLY, I HAVE REASON TO BE OPTIMISTIC BECAUSE , THE BEST PART OF MY JOB IS I GET TO TALK TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOSEN A SPECIFIC ISSUE AROUND FORCED ARBITRATION, PRIVATE EQUITY, WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE, THEY STICK WITH IT FOR MONTHS OR YEARS AND HAVE ENORMOUS IMPACT.

I HAVE SOME OPTIMISM THAT WE WILL MAKE PROGRESS.

BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN PROGRESS HAPPENED SO MANY TIMES ON OTHER ISSUES.

>> BRENDAN BALLOU THANK YOU SO MUCH FOIR TALKING WITH US.