How are we doing today, everybody? Happy Tuesday. My name is Kevin Malone. I am an Advisor to the Board of Directors at Genius Group. As always, everything we say in our space follows our opinions only. We do not give out financial advice here. I am a fiduciary, but I am not your fiduciary unless we have a signed contract saying so. If we end up getting into questions today for our guest speakers, please keep it respectful and frame your questions so that they can be answered without financial advice. I'm going to bring Roger up here first. He is going to do an intro on what I just found out from him was six different intertwined cases. This will be new to me as well. I'm very excited to hear from Wes and Mark as well. Roger, can you hear me? I can. Can you hear me, Kevin? Yeah, you sound perfect and clear. Great. Great, great. Thank you very much for hosting this. Thanks, everyone, for attending. Really, really great that we've got two legends in, Mark Basile and Wes Christian joining us as well. I want to just start by sharing the two reasons we're holding this spaces call. I think a lot of people aren't aware that public companies now, I think this is a fairly new rule, but public companies are not able to provide legal updates via the newswire unless it's the beginning or the end of a case. Why that is, I have no idea, but that's the case. As a result, we've had a real challenge getting information out. We've been putting information in 6-Ks, but not everyone reads 6-Ks. We tried a few times to get the information in PRs, but limited by what we can actually say. This spaces call is the best way for us to be able to give the full picture on the different things that are happening. I know there are most likely people in this call, not just Genius Group shareholders, but shareholders of other companies that are just looking to see what can small-cap companies do at the moment, given the situation in the markets. There's also a second reason, which is obviously as a public company and as a CEO, there's only certain things I can say. Lawyers have also restrictions on what they can say, but they can often say things that the CEO or executives cannot. I thought, what better way than us having a spaces call that others who are not here live can refer back to in the future. Also, we can get the most up-to-date information, given that there are new updates pretty much every single week. The first one where I want to start before we actually bring on our lawyers is to explain that while there are many people trying to keep up with the different lawsuits that we have, which are all interrelated, and they all have one thing in common, which is that they're there to protect the company and our shareholders. What a lot of people aren't aware of is the interlinked number of different suits we've already filed, and including others filing, including the SEC itself as well. Kevin just mentioned six. There is, in fact, seven lawsuits that are all interrelated. I'm going to just run through each of them very briefly so everyone can understand how they link to each other. Also, an arbitration, right? There's actually a total of eight different courts and judges, plus arbitrator. Every single one is different from each other. Each is looking at a particular part of this, but all of them are interlinked in a way that I personally haven't seen any other company yet try. I wanted to share the context of why this is. I know I got a lot of inspiration hearing what Wes has done together with Zeeshan at Quantum, and obviously Kevin has been advising Quantum as well, where there's been a very big focus at the market manipulation case that they already have filed. Many people know we're looking to file something similar, but different. Why have so many different cases going? Our company is in Singapore, and Singapore is a country of around 7 million people. Singapore had the same challenge where it says, how do we fight others outside our country, which are much, much bigger than us? I know quite a number of people in the special forces in Singapore, and they say that if Singapore ever gets attacked, they have an approach, which is to take every, not just take the army, but the army, the air force, the navy. While they might have something smaller than the big opponents they come up against, they have a strategy of defense with attack, which means they've got supercells in all of the main cities in Asia. If Malaysia, Indonesia, if anyone tried to attack Singapore, they have the ability to shut down those governments in a very short period of time through all of their forces being ready, where it's not about the size, it's about the speed. Why do I use that as an analogy? I personally feel that the ways that our company has been attacked have been with much, much bigger forces, with much, much deeper pockets than we have. I don't think I'm alone. There's a small cat that sees that. If that happens, we can't just be out with a lawsuit like the army, like coming from one front, especially because there's only so much you can do, and there's limitations with just one lawsuit. If you bring out the army and the navy and the air force and the special forces and the killer drones and the nuclear weapons, and you bring all of it to bear, at some point, some of it is going to stick. That's why we have so many different lawsuits taking place all at the same time, because each one does something a little bit different. With that in place, let me just share very quickly what these different lawsuits are. They're not all just by us, but they're all there to protect shareholders. It all started pretty much in January-February 2022, which is after we had gone through 30 days with Share Intel of tracking our share data. Wes Christian said, "OK, you've got enough data and proof there that we can now move forward with the lawsuit." It's been now two and a half years of tracking data and working with Wes Christian, his team, on a market manipulation lawsuit. That's one thing we're going to be sharing as an update. This has not yet been filed, but it's imminent. We're going to hear exactly what the status is and what the next steps are there. Right now, that could just be it if that was all it was about. On top of that, as time goes on and we start seeing where we believe that there are attacks against the company, there's a very blatant one this time last year, which was almost exactly to the week when there were a number of individuals in a company that we were looking to do an asset purchase agreement. We had already many issues with it. That's LZGI that many of you know of. The principals of LZGI, basically, at the end, this is already in the public documents. We already shared it as well. There was an attempted takeover of Genius, fully takeover of Genius by them in order to avoid, in our beliefs, having to be compliant with the U.S. laws and securities laws. As a result of that, we started taking action very quickly. It was not us that actually put in the first lawsuit. The first lawsuit, in fact, the first two lawsuits were put in by the LZGI shareholders. These were the LZGI shareholders against the two principals Ritz and Merrill. This first lawsuit took place in October, about a month after the attempted coup on the company. There is one which is in New York, which is a class action lawsuit. This is one way, obviously, that companies have tried to get to justice or protect themselves as the shareholders are the ones that are taking action. It's good to see those LZGI shareholders take this action. There's a second one, which is a derivative lawsuit, which was in Florida. That was also filed at the same time. How that related to us, well, there's plenty of information in those lawsuits, which were effectively correlating to the information that we had and things that could then support our lawsuit as well and effectively verified the things that we already were seeing and were looking for clarification on on those lawsuits as well. We're now working together with the lawyers of those two lawsuits. We've provided affidavits and other information to them. They're doing the same with us as well. You come from things from different directions. It can help massively. Within a month and a half of that, in December, something happened, which was, I believe, very fortuitous, which was that the SEC also filed a lawsuit. This one is in Utah. This lawsuit also relates to us because of the lawsuit specifically against John Clayton and a number of individuals. John Clayton is basically the person who sold LZGI to Ritz and Merrill, as a shell company, and then used his own share transfer agent and his own broker to basically, in the SEC case, what they are claiming is that he had them all working in concert to effectively take shares and create shares that didn't exist. Our entire argument and what many shareholders, retail investors believe is that what's meant to be the wall between a company and a share transfer agent, where the share transfer agent will ensure that all the company shares that it's issuing are actually correct and no one else can issue shares in that company except for the company. The share transfer agent should have a similar wall between itself and the brokers, where if the brokers are transferring or selling any shares, the share transfer agent can actually verify that. This is a theory of it anyway, which would make it impossible for brokers to sell fake shares. If a fund is manipulating in any way, the broker should be there as a wall to the funds to ensure that doesn't happen. What happens if all of them are working in concert together? Or if you've got individuals that own or control the broker, the share transfer agent, the fund, and the company, all four? That's what this case is all about. The SEC case was brought for securities fraud for exactly this happening on a number of companies, including LZGI, which then has an impact on us as well. These were three cases that have become extremely valuable to us in our cases because there are, even though every case is different and is actually looking at a different area, it's all about how do we protect shareholders. Usually what would happen is the SEC, if they do get involved in the case, it's really at the tail end, not at the very beginning. Having those cases there were the first three cases important for us. We then filed our arbitration. The arbitration is not a legal case. It's in front of an arbitrator with the ICC. It is very important because that arbitration enables us to get out of the asset purchase agreement, which is linked to a lot of the challenges we're having. If we are successful in winning that, it actually gets us back a big chunk of shares and cash as a result of that as well. That could be the end of it, but it's not because that's when all the action then took place with all of our different lawsuits. You're going to be hearing some updates on right now. It started with the fact that we filed our first lawsuit at the end of last year in the New York courts. This is in the Southern District of New York. Many of you have been following that case. That case was for us to have a preliminary injunction to protect our shares so no one can go in and just grab those shares and ensure that they stay with our transfer agent while this arbitration was taking place. That was a PI in aid of our arbitration. Both sides agreed on that. Where we then ended up with major challenges was when Merrill and Ritz, under LZGI, in February, added an additional injunction, which stopped us from raising any money, from buying any Bitcoin, effectively from doing anything to change anything within our treasury, effectively. As a result, that, as a small company, can put you in massive peril. It created huge damages, which we've already reported. Off the back of that first case, we did two things. One was we went for appeal. Now we're in a second case, which is also in New York courts, but it's with the Second Circuit, not the first. In the Second Circuit and the appeal, we were very happy to get a stay in that case. When you see updates on the cases, some of those updates are in the appeal case. Some of those updates are in the initial case. Both of those cases, Mark Basile and his team are overseeing, as they are with the arbitration as well. That gave us enough evidence, especially because the information that was coming out of those cases was that Ritz and Merrill were taking action. Many of you know that there was a recording that took place in New York where Ritz claimed certain things, which were enough that I believe it helped us a lot in our appeal. It also helped the original LZGI shareholder cases. They took that recording and they put it in their cases. As a result of that, Ritz and Merrill were effectively found by the judge to have committed fraud. They have been ejected from their positions within LZGI. That happened quite recently. That was in the LZGI cases. They do interrelate in those ways. This also gave us enough to then go for our sixth case, which was the RICO case. The RICO case is filed in Florida. The RICO case is for $750 million in triple damages, much of those damages having been caused by all of these actions that took place through these cases. RICO is a very, very different animal from securities fraud. Mark can share more about that. It's not all cases you can get triple damages, but with RICO, you can. That takes us full circle, two and a half years later, to the market manipulation case, which Wes and his team have been gathering all of the data on. When all of this comes together, like I said, this is not just about the army or the navy or the air force. It's every single direction that you can come from to protect shareholders. I believe that we're unique. Even though we're a small company, Singapore is also a small country. What it can do to be a world leader in ensuring that it is supporting shareholders, that for me is a very, very important part of the mission of Genius to ensure we're not just educating our students, but we're also educating ourselves and the market on what's taking place and what we can do to protect ourselves through this process as well. I know I went through that fairly quickly, but I hope you understand and get the idea that every one of these can add with each other. If it wasn't for the LZGI case or even with the SEC case, our cases would not have all of the cross-references with other areas. When you have so many different judges assessing from different sides and so many different lawyers involved in cooperating and working with each other, that puts us in a much, much, much stronger position against anyone coming in to attack the company or attack the shareholders as well. With that, I'll hand it back over to you, Kevin. Hopefully, that gives us a bit of a context for us to now get the updates from Mark and from Wes. Perfect, Roger. For everyone listening, I was talking to Roger before the call. He and I are going to work on a diagram visual of the different intertwining cases so that everyone can get a better understanding of it. All right, I'm going to bring on Wes right now. Wes, you don't have to do anything. I'll just hit the new button for you. I think everyone here is looking forward to the updates. I'll bring you on next, Mark. Wes, can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yeah, you sound perfectly clear. OK, super. Let me start by going back, you know, two and a half years ago, as Roger alluded to. When we gathered the information from Share Intel, which is valuable, and why that certainly had indicia of market manipulation, what I want everybody on the call to understand is that because of a group of federal cases in the securities fraud area, the level of pleading you have to have and the level of specificity you have to have is enormous. There's a case called Twombly. There are other cases associated with that that say there's a heightened pleading standard as it relates to that. As a result of that, we did see market manipulation in Genius Group. In order to file a case that can actually win and beat a motion to dismiss, all these securities fraud cases, which, as most people on this call are aware, myself and my various partners along the way in the last 23 years, 24 years, have done about 21 of those cases. Presently, we have four pending in New York. Genius Group soon will be five. Meta soon will be six. Ultimately, what's happened is that several years ago, we made a sea change in our group to enlarge our bench. The reason we had to enlarge our bench, so everybody understands, is we, you know, there are armies on the other side of this. Most of the firms we take on have 2,000 lawyers. In most cases, there are three or four or five of those firms. I teamed up not only with Alan Pollock, who's been my colleague for many, many years at his firm. I teamed up with Cohen Milstein. I teamed up with former partners of Boyd Schiller. I teamed up, that's the Friedman firm. I teamed up with Casowitz Taurus, which is a large firm in New York. I teamed up with Schneider Wallace. Presently, Genius is represented not just by my firm, but also Kasowitz Torres and the Schneider Wallace firms. What we did in New York, which has now been successful so far, is we filed the first case on spoofing. The reason we elected to do that, and the reason why this is taking a crazy amount of time, is that we are able to plead with more specificity in a spoofing case than we are in a naked short selling case. Simple version, we gave up at least initially doing cases based on naked short selling. Why? Because even though we could see that there is a manipulation going on, we have to identify which defendant on what day manipulated what, how many shares, and how that negatively impacted the price of the shares that Roger, you know, sought to sell, either in some type of shelf offering or some type of financing or whatever. Every share that Genius issued at a depressed price as a result of the illegal behavior of a specific defendant on a specific day, based on the illegal acts we would plead, is what is sufficient to beat a motion to dismiss. That has worked. That's worked in Harrington, which we're close to going to trial in that case. My partner, Alan Pollock and his firm are mainly the ones that's carrying most of the laboring ore on that. That's worked in my colleague's case, Kasowitz Torres case in Mullan. It's also worked in Northwest Bio. We're waiting on the ruling in Quantum. As you know, that's already been filed. How is all this relevant to Genius shareholders? It's relevant because basically, we've had to redesign some of our proprietary data. We've had to bring on other experts to come in. Why? Because Genius Group is the first New York Stock Exchange company that we have taken on. The reason that is important is because we get different data sets from the OTC cases. We get different data sets from the NASDAQ cases. We get different data sets from the Canadian side, the U.S. side, you know, like in Quantum's case, in Harrington's case. The reality is we've had to spend probably 3x the amount of money with experts that we normally spend in this case. As we sit here today, we're still not there. I know that makes everybody crazy. That includes me because I've been doing this now for basically two years on a contingency basis. Our partners have funded over $700,000, $800,000 in expert fees to get all this done and are continuing to fund more to get us there. What's the estimated time? I know many of you email me all the time. I try to return most of those. My guess is hopefully in a couple of weeks. I've been saying that for the last two months. What does that mean at this point? Nothing, because the truth is these cases in their present form as market manipulation cases based on spoofing are driven by experts. At least for now, as evidenced by all the rulings that we've already established in all these cases in New York, that's working. We're moving the needle. Similar to what Roger said, how ultimately this whole illegal concept of naked short selling, spoofing, loaning shares that don't exist, fails to deliver, shares coming in from out of the country. We now have our own proprietary methods to track a lot of that, including dark pools. Ultimately, this takes an enormous amount of time. It's expert-driven. Until they sign off on it, we cannot file our pleading. We're not there yet. I talked to them as recently as last night in hopes I could give a better definitive update. Unfortunately, I cannot with absolute certainty. I will tell you that everybody is, you know, balls to the wall trying to get this done. I believe in this case. I have from inception. Believing in it and filing a case that can beat a motion to dismiss and have a better chance of winning it is another issue. My best guess is in a couple of weeks. Again, I'm waiting on the experts, as I've been doing for months now. That's where the case is. I'll also tell you, just as a general rule, because I see George is on here. George Pallikaris is the former CEO of Meta. We're also fighting the battle, just so you know. We're continuing in our warrior mode, if you will, pursuing Rule 2004 examinations in Meta, both in federal court in Reno, Nevada, and now also in Washington, D.C., where FINRA, of course, is fighting us to the wall for obvious reasons. That's where we are. I'm happy to take questions. We're anxious to get this filed and ultimately move down the road in the next case, which is Genius. Appreciate it, Wes. Thank you. For everyone listening, Wes is waiting on this information to give that update that everyone's been asking for. He can't give an update without receiving it. It's not like he's on vacation or anything like that. He's just waiting for all the data to be compiled and delivered to him to give the shareholders their updates, the company their updates as well. Mark, I'm going to bring you on really quick, give the introduction, and let's talk RICO. Can you hear me, Kevin? I can. Can you hear me, Mark? Yeah, yeah, I can hear you. Perfect. OK, so kudos to Wes for being so diligent. He has a very long runway to gather data in order to present a pleading that will survive a motion to dismiss. I know there have been challenges in the past with these issues with some of the federal courts. He's probably the top guy in the country in spoofing cases, and he's put a really good stable of attorneys around him. I'm expecting some OK corral kind of stuff as soon as that complaint gets filed, Wes. My whole team at my firm are looking forward to looking at that as well. Fortunately for us, our jobs on behalf of Genius in the several cases we're involved require different sets of data. Some of it, at least initially, before I talk about the specific cases, a lot of this information came from this other public company, LZGI, and its shareholders when it filed its initial class action and derivative action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York. We were able to get both of those cases dismissed fairly quickly against Genius before we even had to answer those complaints. The LZGI shareholders also filed a derivative action in the state of Florida. We had moved that to the federal courts. In order to resolve the issues that they still alleged against Genius down in Florida, they dismissed the claims against Genius and transferred the case back to the Florida State Court, where recently the Florida State Court entered judgment against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, a whole bunch of different issues culminating in the removal of the defendants from their board of directors and executive officer positions. This kind of coincides with the SEC versus Clayton case, where the SEC has alleged that LZGI has been a victim of these kind of backdoor dealings amongst the executives and affiliates. Those are allegations by the SEC, and those have to play out as well. In general, a 20,000-foot view on the cases we're managing, we're still in the preliminary stages. We haven't been met yet with any motions to dismiss the RICO action or anything else. We're kind of expecting those motions to come in sometime towards the end of September. The difference is between Wes's type of issues and our issues. Our issues are kind of fact-specific on wire and mail fraud. Based upon the contents of the pleading, which I think all of you should access FaceTime and pull down the Southern District of Florida case and the amended complaint that we filed there, take a look at those allegations and how those allegations also tie into the Florida State derivative action brought by the LZGI shareholders, as well as the SEC versus Clayton action. You can start seeing a much clearer picture of how the allegation in the complaint that LZGI, the corporate entity, was used as a RICO enterprise to enrich those who were managing and running LZGI and kind of how that bleeds into the SEC versus Clayton complaint. Remember, the RICO complaint is at the allegation stage. There are a couple of administrative problems with challenges to serving some out-of-state defendants. We've resolved those challenges. They've all been served. We're waiting for responses from two of the four defendants. We expect that case to be pretty straightforward. Of course, it's going to be met with a motion to dismiss. We feel that our pleadings are so specific with regard to the conduct of the individuals as they relate to the RICO enterprise that we feel pretty confident that we'll survive a motion to dismiss. We'll head right into discovery. That's an important aspect because a lot of these cases, whether they're, and Wes can explain that to you also and has explained in prior conferences, that getting past the motion to dismiss stage and getting into the discovery stage is really where all hell breaks loose. You're able to uncover more facts or actual documents that support the allegations that you've made and support the issues that you're suing on. The RICO case is a very interesting case. While it's limited in scope as applied to the general market, it has nothing to do with securities laws violations. This has to do with a civil RICO claim that a group of individuals got together, are using a vehicle as a RICO enterprise to run illegal activities through. That's the crux of the allegations. They use the mails. They use emails. They use wire transfers. That's what brings it under the RICO statute. Again, it's just allegations. We have to go through the process of proving those allegations. I think just like any other legal case, some of this takes a little bit of time. Right now, we're just waiting for the motions to dismiss that will most likely be filed. We'll oppose those, and we'll have oral arguments. The court will decide where to go from there. Regarding another matter that we're handling is the arbitration. Now, because the arbitration is confidential, I cannot tell you anything specific that's going on in the arbitration other than we're going through the administrative procedures with the arbitrator. We've had a couple of hearings and a couple letter motions. That's all I'm allowed to talk to you about. I can discuss a little further the corollary action, which we filed in the Southern District of New York in aid of the arbitration. Just so you know, a lot of state laws have these provisions that allow you to seek under state law help from a court in order to maintain things during the arbitration. A lot of things can happen. People can try to sell a property and assets or hide money or whatever. The courts are usually called in to what's called maintain the status quo. When we first filed the arbitration, Roger was concerned about a bunch of shares sitting at the transfer agent that were part of the transaction, the underlying transaction that could have been transferred to the LZGI parties. He felt that it's incumbent to basically freeze those shares, not to cancel them or deny them, just to freeze those shares at the transfer agent until the arbitration can be decided. If Genius is successful in the arbitration, those shares will come back and possibly all the money that Genius had paid. If Genius loses, the shares are still at the transfer agent, and they could be transferred out to the appropriate parties. In the meantime, we wanted the, and this gets a little complicated. The LZGI shareholders that commenced the class action and the two derivative actions, one in New York and one in Florida, wanted those shares issued. They kind of intervened in the matter in the Southern District of New York. That complicated things as well. We had a change of judges from one judge to another in order to consolidate where all the cases are being heard. It made sense for the same judge who was familiar with the class action and derivative action to also participate in the aid and arbitration petition that we filed. We were able to secure a temporary restraining order and a consented-to preliminary injunction that basically just said, OK, we're going to freeze those shares. You're not allowed to vote those shares, and the shares will be frozen until the arbitration is decided. Both sides kind of agreed that that's what they wanted to do. Until the respondents in the petition action hired this big law firm who came in and sought their own petition in aid of arbitration in front of the same judge that temporarily prevented Genius from accessing its at-the-market funding vehicle, allowed to purchase Bitcoin through investor money and issue shares. We took the position that has nothing to do with maintaining the status quo. That was punitive, and it was designed solely by the respondents to hurt Genius, to put them into a position where they would be forced to settle upon terms that the respondents, defendants wanted to impose upon Genius and its shareholders. Roger said, I'm not dealing with that. You know, we need to go up to the Second Circuit. We agreed. We made an application to the Second Circuit just to stay that second preliminary injunction that prevented Genius Group from doing all this. We filed briefs. They filed briefs. King and Spalding filed their brief. We held oral argument, and we beat King and Spalding. Not to say that we regularly beat a lot of big firms in litigation, which we do. That kind of gets lost in the source because we're kind of a small boutique firm. We're used to fighting big firms like this. Once we beat them at the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit said there is a likelihood of success that Genius will prevail on their appeal, King and Spalding sought to withdraw from that matter, sought to withdraw from the Southern District related matter, claiming that they had a conflict of interest or irreconcilable differences with their client. I think they bailed because we beat them at the Second Circuit. Recently in the Second Circuit, we did, you know, because LZGI is a party in that, because they're the ones whose preliminary injunction we're challenging, they're unrepresented. The court took notice of default on LZGI in the Second Circuit. The issue, though, is because they haven't decided the appeal because of the default, we had to file our brief. Not only did we file our opening brief, and you'll see that the opening brief was filed under seal because it related a lot to information in the arbitration, which is confidential. We also made a motion to dismiss Merrill and Ritz individually out of the appeal because, based upon the Florida State Court indicating that they were stripped from their board positions and stripped from their executive management positions, the issues that related to them personally have now been mooted out. We filed a motion to dismiss them from the appeal. If that's successful, I'll only use LZGI, who's already defaulted. We'll see how the Second Circuit wants to handle that. Other than what Roger explained, which was a very good overall synopsis on our firm's involvement in these three or four actions on behalf of Genius, this is all I can really add to the conversation. The RICO case may expand further depending on what Wes's complaint alleges. Right now, we're just kind of sitting tight waiting for the spoofing lawsuit to be filed because we want to see if it ties into anything that we have been able to uncover in our cases. We'll do whatever we can to assist Wes on the discovery side. I'm sure Wes would reciprocate as well. I'm sure Roger would expect that the attorneys work together going forward. That's basically all I can contribute today. If there's any specific questions towards the end, if Roger allows us to entertain them, we'll answer what we can. Kevin, that's all I have right now. Appreciate it, Mark. I like what you're saying about the RICO and definitive proof is a lot easier to obtain or prove compared to like what Wes was saying with the naked shorting. Same with Wes, I like that it makes perfect sense going after spoofing because everyone here probably knows that naked shorting exists. Now more than 50% of retail trades go through market makers and market makers have a special ability and legal ability to naked short. How do you track these all down and decide who's at fault or not? A lot of the brokerages also have their own exchanges or separate entities that do this. They'll be like, oh, no, we just ran it through here, so we're allowed to do it. Roger, you want to give some updates on what the two lawyers said? Then we'll see if there's any questions. Yeah, definitely. What I'd really like to share here is more than anything, a key message that, you know, where I think a lot of small companies and CEOs have a real challenge is whichever direction you go, trying to take the legal route with bad guys, with any, like, there's always a different route. There's always another door they can kind of step out of. Then you're kind of stuck. You know what Mark was saying there at the end, we could not be in the position we're at right now. I just saw this post this morning about Mark's firm having just put in a motion to dismiss the most recent lawyer, which I believe is the fourth or the fifth round of lawyers in the last 12 months that Ritz and Merrill and LZGI have had. This is in the arbitration case. Of course, like you said, it's not possible for him to share much in the arbitration case. When you have a lawyer that, you know, like steps out of all the other cases and then resteps back into an arbitration case, given that the arbitration case is the only one which doesn't have a judge on it, the fact that we do have the related case with the Southern District means we can file in the Southern District and actually basically provide all the details of what's taken place in the other cases. If it wasn't for the fact that the LZGI shareholders in their case were able to eject through the judge Ritz and Merrill, which, of course, we're a different company from LZGI, so we have no ability for that to happen. Even if, you know, we believe that they're doing wrong by our company and we've got lawsuits against it, we can't make them step down from their company, but LZGI can. Similarly, LZGI did not have all the information that we had. The actual evidence in front of the judge in the Florida case included my affidavit of evidence that I had on Ritz and Merrill. Every one of us could not have won what we won without working with totally separate cases, looking at things from a slightly different side. This is no different from the fact that if we believe that anyone who is doing things that could be against others doesn't just have one door. They've got four, five, six doors. If you've got the ability to have experts and lawyers and people that are really making sure that they're one step ahead on every single one of those doors, then it's just a matter of time. It's just a matter of time. You're collecting data on every single step as you go as well and being super diligent about it because I believe that a lot of CEOs aren't aware that if you want to go back and look at data over the last 12 months, it is not easy to do unless you've actually got real-time tracking that's been taking place all the way through those 12 months as well. We're spending as much time collecting data all the way through knowing that with AI and with the tools that we have, plus with the experts and the cross-references, it all comes back. Who knows? The U.S. SEC might be making decisions on their case which then impact ours massively, or the LZGI shareholders make some on their case, or one of our judges in one of our cases makes one which impacts the other case as well. The bottom line is, as long as we're covering every door and we continue on with our business, it's just a matter of time for our long-term shareholders to know we're not giving up this fight. We're like a dog with a bone. We're not letting anyone off the hook here. I believe in the long term, we're going to look back and see this as a case study of the way to handle the ambiguities and the loopholes in the market that many people we believe are taking advantage of right now. That would be the main thing I would say is that the main message is everything's moving forward. Even in this week, last week, there's been multiple motions that are out there. There's been many people doing their due diligence and sharing with others as well. I really appreciate those of our investors that are doing that. Please continue with that as well because this thing isn't slowing down. It's speeding up. We're going to be seeing more and more and more actions as this takes place and as we move forward as well. That would be the main thing I would share. I'd be more than happy, Kevin, if there's some questions for Mark and Wes while they're here that we, you know, whatever we can answer, we'll do our best to answer. Absolutely. I agree with you. You know, it only takes one of these seven or eight doors to blow the whole thing wide open and cause that domino effect. There's probably multiple public company CEOs that are going to be listening to this show for ideas, as well as possible leaving CEOs, which I would love to see filing these future suits together. We already know that the regulators, I can't say that, they're bombarded with information coming towards them. We've seen them not act on, you know, shutting off the buy button back in January 2021 with the whole GameStop fiasco. I feel like 10, 20 public company CEOs coming together with these cases can't be ignored, right? Especially if they're all listed in the country and they all have, or say they have the exact same problem with the data together, it's not going to be able to be ignored. It's going to be in everyone's face at the regulators, to the state, senators, congresspeople, everything to where like, oh, these aren't, you know, quote, by them, dumb retail investors. These are CEOs that all say the same thing is happening. I would go one step further, Kevin, and say the biggest change by us is holding on because I know those who are following us and were our shareholders two years ago know that I was doing a number of roundtables with other CEOs. I don't think there's a single one of those CEOs that's still in their business, either because the business had to get delisted or it went bankrupt or the CEO had to leave. They've all gone. They all wanted to stay, right? Basically, they all had the same challenge, which is if you've got, you know, basically the winds against you and you're doing everything possible to save your company and the system's rigged against you, you aren't going to last a year or two years. The fact that we have lost. That's the naked short's goal. Yeah, exactly. Their goal is to get you to go bankrupt. We have. Investors forget about it. We have had multiple times where, you know, the way the system works is if your share price gets pushed down enough, you get the delisting notices. You then end up having to delist or even go bankrupt off the back of it. They can put, as they did with us, basically ways to try and stop us from being able to even raise funds. All of this, basically, you need to find ways to navigate through as you're going forward. While this is all happening, we're learning a lot, and we're definitely a lot stronger with a much, much stronger legal team than when we first had our IPO, when I didn't know Wes. I didn't know Mar. I went out looking for who is the best expert when it comes to naked short selling and market manipulation. Wes Christian's name just kept on coming out. I said, who is the expert when it comes to RICO claims? Mark's name kept on coming out. We said, let's go to those who really specialize in this. The amount of information and what I've learned as a result of having them as my lawyers has been invaluable. If I'd known this at the time of the IPO, we would have done things much, much, much different further back. The biggest things that have changed during this time, some people have been watching what we're doing with Bitcoin and with crypto. Many people will know that we wanted to be on a blockchain-based exchange. That's what we did when we had our dual listings up to an exchange. We had to come off that, right? The SEC was a very different SEC a couple of years ago than it is today. The regulators are very different, right? The kind of conversations we now have with regulators and even, as we said, with the SEC case against Clayton and that group is really worth reading these complaints because then you really understand that this is not all being ignored. Definitely at the time when we were in 2022, there was much, much more of a mood with retail investors that things weren't moving forward. We've seen a huge shift in all of that. I believe that we'll continue to see that. In the same way, we're now starting to reactivate some of our plans around Bitcoin, around tokenization because there's been this big shift within the regulations. I believe this is going to continue to accelerate in favor of retail investors. I don't think it's going to be that long before we do end up having tokenized shares and having the ability to have zero-time settlements so that we don't end up creating these loopholes. At the same time, we're going to have wins between the different companies that Wes, Mark, and other lawyers are championing. Every one of them is a win for all of us. I just want to say that from that point of view, if there's been shifts in the last two years, which I believe there has been, the next two years, there's going to be many, many, many more shifts. I believe they're going in the right direction. They don't come without all of us being willing to basically hold on and push against that manipulation. Absolutely. I think multiple public companies are wanting to and ready to go to blockchain exchanges. Luckily, the regulations have changed more in favor over the last two years, like you're saying. What's coming with that that I'm seeing is a lot more blockchain exchanges for stocks that you're not going to be able to trust. You have to know that the bad actors are going to be getting into blockchain exchanges as well. I mean, we can already see cryptos like through Robinhood and Coinbase that aren't even real. They're still IOUs, even though they're, you know, co-blockchain until someone were to withdraw. I've been saying for years, if everyone on Coinbase withdrew their Bitcoin to hard wallet, the company would implode in a day. As we are coming up on the hour, let's see if there's any questions that, while we have Mark and Wes on, they could help with. Absolutely. Let me bring up Larry real quick. Hey, Larry, you got a question for any of the guests here? Yeah. Hey, thanks for hosting this. Super educational. Roger, when you said, hi, nice to say hi again. When you said I would change the IPO, what would you change knowing what you know now? Great question. At the time of the IPO, my personal feeling is that at that time, if we had already a clear picture on how we would be either having, if I was to do it different, I would have actually listed on another exchange first and then done a dual listing on the New York Stock Exchange because it just makes it much, much more difficult if you do that for someone to just manipulate your shares because you don't yet have, you know, as soon as you IPO, you don't have a large base of retail investors. It's much easier for someone to bring in volume and push your share price down. That's part of our complaint and what we said at the time. We could see a very, very clear pattern of that taking place over the first nine months of our trading before we brought Wes on board. That would be by far the biggest one. The other thing which is definitely a possibility and would have been more helpful is, again, knowing, at the time when you're listing, you're absolutely focused on the growth of the business. You're focused on your long-term investors. We already were a public company in Singapore and many investors on board. They all were on board for the right reasons, right? They were on board because they wanted the company to be successful. Just being more aware of the kind of actors that we have seen in the U.S., vetting much, much, much more carefully the people coming our way and what information we provided for them or the ones we brought into our funding rounds, we would have looked at that very differently as well. To follow on that with countermeasures, I thank you for your diligence. I cheer for you with the hardship that I'm guessing that you're subjected to. Godspeed and my blessings and my well wishes for your continued diligence. What's your guys' thinking when it comes to a dividend that's Bitcoin, that's nominal Satoshis? Is there any thought to that? Or can you comment on that even? I mean, one thing which relates to your first question and also links to the Bitcoin. You know, when you're listing and you're going public and you're thinking about your growth and where you want to go, you're not thinking that, and we did a number of acquisitions as well. Obviously, when you're doing acquisitions, you're able to show the value of those acquisitions on your books, right? You can do that too. However, if you happen to have people wanting to manipulate your shares and they know at the best they can push the shares right down so you have to delist. If they're worse, they might not be able to push it down enough for you to delist. If they can bring your market cap down to a low enough point by audit rules, you have to, and I don't know if everyone's aware of this, but if you're a public company and you've got $100 million of assets and you've gone out and done $100 million of M&A, and then you're pushed down to like a $15 million market cap, you have to take that write-off. If you're looking at all the losses that we've made since we IPOed, a huge amount of that is the write-offs of our goodwill, where basically we've got valuable acquisitions. We had to write them down to zero. In fact, we've got some very valuable parts of our company which not only went to zero, but almost had to go negative. This is why we did the spin-off of Entrepreneur Resorts. It got back to its full value again. When everyone sees those losses and they don't know the story of the business and they think, oh, you must be doing terribly without realizing it was because your share price went so low that you had to mark down all of those down to your net asset, that's ridiculous. The big point about Bitcoin is that once you actually start buying Bitcoin on your balance sheet, anyone can see that your balance sheet is far greater. If they just look at the number of Bitcoin that you have, then what your share price is. It gives you insurance against someone being able to push you down that far. That is a really, really important part. Also, if you have anyone coming in who finds ways to dilute you and then, as a result of that, take control away from you and your business or find ways to come on board and look for other ways that they can effectively do a hostile takeover, we've done a huge amount of this year making sure no one can do that. We have in place the right safeguards to ensure that's the case. As I know many of you know, I took pretty much all my shares and converted them from shares that were tradable in the New York stock market as A-type shares and converted them to non-tradable. You can't trade them on the stock market anymore, but it gives me more voting so that we don't end up in a situation like that again where someone can just take over. These are all aspects which enable that to happen. To your point about dividend, we have said that any proceeds that we receive from any of these lawsuits, because these lawsuits, we're putting a lot of time and effort into making sure that we're protecting shareholders. It should be shareholders that benefit from it. We said, OK, the returns from any lawsuits, 50% will go to a dividend to shareholders and 50% will go to our Bitcoin, which, of course, Bitcoin, with what we believe will happen in Bitcoin, will be of value to the shareholders in the future as we grow as well. We're going to keep looking for smart ways that we can keep on securing the value that our shareholders have, no matter how much other people try and take it away. I really hope you kick ass. Thank you. We do too. To some extent, I believe at the moment we are. Kevin? Dingos. Perfect. Mark, can you still hear me? I got a question for you before I pull up the next two that are here. Yeah, I can hear you. All right. There's been a lot of info going around on X the last week about FINRA. There's tons of information out there on the whole MMLTP fiasco. I just wanted to kind of see from a professional's perspective on what FINRA has the rights to and what they don't have the rights to. My understanding is that FINRA regulates broker-dealers and their agents. Obviously, anyone is allowed to investigate anyone, right? There's private investigators. There's public investigators. Anyone can ask anyone a question. Who do they have the right to regulate? FINRA only has authority to regulate its member brokers. If they're a registered broker-dealer or a financial advisor, they fall under the FINRA umbrella. They can investigate, bring administrative proceedings, boot them out, and share information with the SEC that has other enforcement capabilities. FINRA is supposed to be this sort of enclosed community of brokers and dealers. The unfortunate thing is that FINRA is actually run by members of those broker-dealers. To me, I've always taken the position that imposes an inherent conflict of interest. Whether it's MMTLP or some other group that has issues with FINRA's conduct, FINRA's conduct can absolutely affect the market. There are some anomalies that it looks like FINRA did regarding that community, the MMTLP dividend, preferred stock dividend. At the end of the day, and I know my firm has tried to get information from them, they weren't able to do so. They held things very tightly. They basically claimed that their enforcement and investigative data and information is private. It only can be used by them or the SEC. If the SEC asks, it can't be used by a civil litigant. It can't be accessed by a civil litigant. That's kind of the holdup because not only with MMTLP, but a lot of other communities, we're not sure exactly, other than what's blatant in the market, like the U3 halt. Other than that, we don't know the real data and the reasons for that U3 halt. We don't know, other than the retail shareholders, who are affected by that U3 halt as far as the brokers are concerned. Were they being protected by FINRA? They had to cover potential massive short positions? We don't know. They all fall under FINRA's jurisdiction. I know at least once or twice we tried to get information through the courts from FINRA. We've been unable to do so. I think in Wes' in the made-up bankruptcy case, where you have the United States Trustees Office that supervises the Chapter 7 trustee in there, I think they have the perception of different powers. As Wes was referring to, 2004 exams and subpoena power, the federal court may allow those kind of discovery requests to go through, whether they're just done through a protective order or in camera, so the parties can inspect it outside the public view. I think the Chapter 7 trustee through the United States Trustees Office, which is a government arm, part of the DOJ, has a better chance of getting that information. Kevin, to answer your question, FINRA really can only regulate its member brokers. If you're a hedge fund and you're not a member broker, you don't fall under FINRA's jurisdiction. You can go do deals if you want, these crushing dilution deals. Even though if you were a FINRA member, they would probably violate the excessive compensation rules that FINRA has, and they would never allow you to do them. That's a whole other issue for a whole other space call in the future. Let's do it. We also got Zeeshan, CEO of Quantum, up here with a question. Let me bring Zeeshan on and see who he has a question for. Zee, can you hear me? Yes, yes, I can. Thank you, Kevin. Of course. I would like to start off with, wow, what a great space call and what an amazing job Roger James and the lawyers have done to explain everything. Congratulations on that. I just have a question for Mark, actually. Does FINRA have, Mark, authority to invest public companies? That's my question, because, like you said, FINRA can only regulate or investigate broker-dealers. Is that the scope? Yes, that's supposed to be the scope. We have seen some indications of FINRA approving or disapproving, and quite possibly in the meta materials, the MMTLP issue actually change a corporate action, which has tremendous market effects. Again, that's what it looks like, but there's still no direct evidence regarding the data why. FINRA cannot exert any administrative control at all over a public company issuer. Administrative control, but what about investigations on public companies? I think we have seen examples where FINRA would investigate and the SEC would take some action. Do they have the authority, or it's nebulous, or how does that work? Technically, they don't have the authority. They have to stay within their realm of member brokers. If they do come across an anomaly, they have to refer that to the SEC, who can conduct and who has the authority over public company issuers. That's just something that falls outside of FINRA's realm. Now, can they do it? They can try to do it, I guess. Sure, they can ask any public company or anyone on earth whatever they want, right? Sure. Whether you answer or not is if you're a broker-dealer or not. If you don't, if they want to bring it to the SEC with their question or whatever, then the SEC obviously has the authority, and that's what they're there for and regulated to do the investigation. Thank you so much, Mark. That was so informative and you did such a great job. I would like to mention that many CEOs are coming together, like I've spoken to Rogers and we have aligned, and John Forrester, as you guys know, we have spoken and aligned, and exchanged notes with George Pallikaris. There are several other CEOs coming together. Retail is uniting. This has become a very, I would say, unstoppable force now with all this. Congratulations on this, to all of you. Thank you. I will let others take questions though. Appreciate it, Zee. Let's see. Let's take Stephen here as the last question. Sorry, everyone else. I just know everyone's on tight time this morning or late evening for Roger. Stephen, how are you doing? Oh, good. Can you hear me? I can hear you perfectly. All right. I just had a quick question about, like, I just got done watching the Trevor Milton, I guess, like, a documentary that he made on YouTube. Are you familiar? No, I have no idea what it's about. Trevor Milton was the guy that started Lucid and he got attacked by Heisenberg short. He has documentation of the DOJ and MSNBC in hand and foot with Heisenberg doing news stories and indicting him in courts, like, right as he went to go public, stuff like that. They stole like $30 billion. Obviously the rot is super deep in the system. Now that there's new law firms coming in to help out, how vetted are they for possible corporate espionage? These guys are obviously desperate. I mean, I got accounts on X trying to set me up to say the wrong thing to make you look bad, like, acting like you're my daddy, telling me how to invest my money and shit. It's so crazy. I just get paranoid after seeing how deep the shorts are inside the system to know, are you going to let the internet sleuth go and vet the law firms for us or do you know what I mean? So that someone doesn't go and sabotage from inside? I love it. I think about it a lot too, you know, these people that have done this at the very top for a very long time are going to do anything they can to win. I always had in the back of my mind, the info with Computershare when the GameStop investors were trying to DRS 100% there and got swapped at 25%. When it started, I said, how hard is it for one of these massive $100 billion brokerage banks to give a $1 billion offshore bribe to do something? I bet, and I wouldn't be surprised if Wes has had calls before from higher-ups asking, and he's had an awesome stance of sticking with his morals forever. Mark might have had them as well. Roger might have had them. No clue there, but it's always in the back of my mind. I love that most of the listeners here deep dive into research and cases and filings all the time. I've said it multiple times that the best thing that ever happened from all of the brokerages colluding to turn off the buy buttons in January of 2021 is there's more than a million people now that look for crime every single day that can share information instantly on social media. That's the best thing that came from that because their ways of hiding pretty much disappeared or 99% of their hidings because now you had all these people researching everything. Yeah, I mean, Kevin, just on that point, this is what I would say about that. There's the systemic issue. Then there's the people who are making the most of the systemic issue. The systemic issue is a very, very, very simple one. I think most people here are not just investors, but most likely entrepreneurs as well, where you've started a business or you're owning a business right now. As a private business, here's the irony. You currently have more control on your cap table than as a public business, right? Like, as a private, I've had private businesses all my life. As a private business, I always knew who the shareholders were in my cap table, and I got to choose who those people were. If someone ended up misbehaving or doing the wrong thing, there'd be ways for the rest of the shareholders to basically ask them to sell those shares or that they weren't welcome anymore. If we didn't have that, like, you know, if I was told when I first started my first business, just to let you know, you know, you can go out there and you can bring some investors in, but you can have zero control as to whether or not some of these people are in for the wrong reasons. You're also going to have zero control whether or not people can sell shares in your business without even owning them. I would have thought twice about starting a business in the first place. I was like, then who actually even owns or controls the business? The moment you become a public company is the fact that there are super high regulations on the company. You know, you need to have an audit, and if there's any fraud whatsoever, it needs to be reported internally in the company. There's no such standard to have an audit externally of your shareholders to be able to know exactly what is, you know, at any point, right? You know, you would expect that if regulators came in, they'd be able to see that you had control on your financials. You can't have control on exactly who's owning your business or who's just sold your share today, and how many of them were actually short sold, and who were those people. There's zero way to know. Even though there's attempts, and we're just seeing this week, right? The big brokers at this point, you know, basically making the SEC's goal of having this more regulated, you know, pushed back to the SEC again. All of this would go away if the system was enabling us all to see who was the ones that were buying, who were selling. Or even frankly, I mean, like a lot of you here on X, you're similar to me. You don't want anyone just coming along and trolling your account and all the rest of it, or else the people that are decent are going to say, "I'm not going to listen to this anymore. It's just junk." They would leave, right? In exactly the same way, why is there no way that, you know, a public company, when they say, "I don't want anyone, you know, I don't want anyone buying my shares, I don't want to have buy my shares, or I don't want anyone coming in to just sell shares and trash on the company and hire people to trash on the company and do illegal things that other people, including ourselves, aren't allowed to do." Then we're told, "Well, you have to do that because that's the way we get liquidity." It's why I'd rather have less liquidity and have an honest shareholder base and people that want to support the business, than just be here as a punching bag and a profit machine for the short sellers. Especially if the short sellers aren't there because they just believe you have a bad business. The short sellers are there because they're trying to take you out of business. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. There will be, in the future, markets where this is the case. Already in Asia, there are markets which are much, much more aware and supportive of the retail investors, which is why we're going to be doing a dual listing in Asia as well. We're not waiting around for this to happen. One day it will happen, right, in America as well. In the meantime, what we can do is know that no matter what legal things we try and do to support the company, there'll be 10x more illegal things for people to do around us. That means we're going to do 10x more. I think that's the reason we actually had this update, we were believing by the time of this update that Wes would be ready. Wes is doing everything to be ready. We'll do another update when it's appropriate. We're going to keep on pushing forward on all fronts here. Again, I know Wes and Mark had to leave, but I really, really just want to say a big appreciation for them and their army of lawyers and experts behind them. And frankly, same to all the shareholders that have continued to support us and believe in the long term. We're going to keep on pushing in ways that they don't keep pushing our share price down. We're very pleased that we've at least kept the level over the last 12 months and seen, now, the pluses of us winning, you know, parts of the cases as we're moving ourselves forward and making progress. I believe this next year, we're going to be doing a lot more of that as well. Those would be my final kind of like wrap-up comments there, Kevin. Thanks everyone, very much for being here. Yeah, thank you, Roger. Thank you, Wes and Mark, for coming on and explaining everything. I know how it feels when I talk deep finance to lawyers and their eyes glaze over and roll in the back of their heads because they blew stuff way over my head on some of their terminology, in their explanations. Like I was telling the listeners, you and I, Roger, will get that kind of diagram going with the cases. Hopefully, when we show all these different points, it'll be able to help these other CEOs as well that think this is going on. The more we get out there, the better. I think we've had a lot of better regulation in some of those Asian markets than we do in the U.S. markets for securities fraud. I truly believe that during the GameStop fiasco of 2021, they saw, I guarantee, Gary Gensler saw what was under the hood that nobody knew was going on, just like the 2008 financial crisis. They said, "Oh my God." I think they know all the problems and all the bad actors, but that it is so big and massive and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars that there is no bailout, there is no, like, everything would crash and that they've just been slowly trying to stop it. They can't just turn off the switch. When I asked Patrick Byrne, how do you fix it without the whole thing breaking? He said, "You can't." I said, "I haven't been able to figure out a way either because I think it's so incredibly massive with the amount of, saint shares out there." The biggest business industry in the entire world in revenue is selling stocks that don't exist. Billions of dollars. You take cash and you give an IOU. Then 99% of public companies end up failing. That works usually until it doesn't in 2021. Now they don't know how to get out of it. All right, everybody. I appreciate all the listeners, all the people that had questions on this. Please keep doing the amazing research that you guys have, sending valuable information or tagging valuable information with Roger or Zeeshan or any public company CEOs or lawyers. If you find something massive, reach out to them. I'm going to be putting together a list of regulation offices for each state in the U.S. so that I can post that for people to reach out to their own Department of Finances and get a lot of this information to different parties. We know what's happened with the million emails and letters sent to FINRA and the SEC. I do think a lot of governing people that have gotten letters, there's been some that have spoken out about it and said, "I see a problem here." Has anything changed? No, but more of them are seeing it. If, you know, 5, 10, 20, 50 Congress people eventually end up seeing it, hopefully, we'll be able to make that change. Kevin, just what I would say for everyone as well, because this is clearly called the Genius Group lawsuit update, is that we have got a business we are running on the education and the clean treasury side. We have got our Genius Future Summit, which is going to be both online as well as in person on the 2nd and 3rd of October. We're going to, I'm sure, have quite a number of you there, and we're going to be adding in to the education side, financial education as far as the markets go. In our micro-courses, we are already working on a number of micro-courses for anyone, both CEOs as well as investors, that want to know what they can do to protect their investments in their company, and what are the things to look out for. We're also going to be working on a number of AI projects, so that we have got the right tools to equip CEOs, companies, and investors, with the massive data out there, to be able to find out exactly where the issues are. This is all in the works at the moment. It's a phenomenal idea, Roger. Yeah, what Zeeshan said about CEOs working together, I think this is where we can do the most, right? We can't do much to change regulation other than keep shouting, but what we can do is use our innovation and our teams to come up with very, very smart ways to outsmart the people that are trying to outsmart us. Absolutely. There's hundreds of CEOs, I guarantee it, that have no idea what a naked short is. Yeah. It's not their job. They create a company and whatever their passion was, they just see their stock go down every single day with no clue about any of this because they don't have social media or they don't watch anything. They're just focused on the business. There's probably so many cases. I can pull a 10 a day just by looking at the charts to know, when I see one trade 50 times its volume in a day that this is on a list. We're going to be in contact with them and getting these people more educated. I love that, you're going to add, you know, finance to the education courses and everything. Yep, great. Appreciate it, Roger. Appreciate everyone being here today. I hope everyone enjoys the rest of the week. Keep fighting out there. Stay loud. Don't stay complicit. Try and learn something new every single day. We will see you all soon. I'll try and set up another call maybe for next week where we can hopefully get Roger, Zeeshan, and maybe another three or four CEOs to do a CEO conference call on educating more companies. I think that'd be a great idea. All right. Thanks, everyone. Perfect. Thank you, guys.