How a Trial Lawyer Took on Tesla—and Used AI to Win (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Well, Brett, first of all, thank you for doing this. This is seriously incredibly cool. I couldn't be happier for you. I have some idea, a tiny idea of the work that goes into that kind of a trial and that kind of result. But before we even get into that, tell me a little bit about Brett Schreiber.

[00:00:18] Speaker 2: I grew up in South Florida. It was actually kind of what made this trial cool, it was a bit of a coming home. But no, I grew up the son of a poor man's lawyer. My dad was a public defender. So I was brought up, in fact, there are a lot of people who say that they were born to be a trial lawyer. I was actually born because of a trial. My dad was defending a couple of guys who had allegedly murdered some people. And halfway through the trial, him and the bachelor prosecutor noticed that there was a new court reporter who took over for the second half of the trial. And they had a bet as to who could get a date first.

[00:00:56] Speaker 1: This is incredible.

[00:00:57] Speaker 2: Yeah, who could get a date with the, you know.

[00:00:59] Speaker 1: You're starting off with this story. This is a great story.

[00:01:02] Speaker 2: And who could get a date with the court reporter. And my dad won the bet. And as a result, you and I are sitting here having this conversation.

[00:01:09] Speaker 1: You have got to be. That is awesome. Yeah. That is awesome. Okay, so take me back a little bit. You grew up in Miami. At some point, you decided to become a lawyer as well.

[00:01:20] Speaker 2: Was that always in the cards or? No. So I was actually, I'm at Florida State. I'm back there. And like I said, I was a writing and religion major. So I was utterly unemployable. And I knew, law school was interesting to me. I was going to go into kind of the ivory tower. I had been given a full ride to get a doctorate in human rights and ethics. And I had started this new department. And so I started doing that part time. But I had grown up in politics. My dad, as a public defender, eventually became the chief public defender, which means he got elected every four years. And when I was in Tallahassee, there's, you know, it's the capital of Florida. And so I had worked in the Democratic Party and worked with the various senators. So it was an interesting time to be around politics. And I was there. And I remember two things. One, the philosophy of human rights classes were interesting. But I remember as we would talk about these issues involving human rights, I would occasionally raise my hand and be like, well, what are we going to do about this? And they're like, do? We don't do anything. We just sit here and talk about stuff. And I was like, yeah, this is not for me. I get this thing in the mail from this school in San Diego. It's called Thomas Jefferson School of Law. And I went to this guy. His name was Skip Campbell. He was a senator. I think he went on to even become the attorney general of Florida or something. I went up to him. I said, Skip, I've known him because I've worked for him. I said, I got this thing in the mail from this school. I've never heard of it. And he goes, look. He's like, Brett, by any objective measure, I've been wildly successful as a trial lawyer. And he said, and I've tried cases all over the country, and I've never once had a judge or a jury ask me, where did I go to law school? The sage advice he shared with me, which I still remember to this day, is he goes, look. He goes, find a school where you can have some fun and get the education and minimize the damages while you're at it. And they basically gave me a free ride to go to law school. The other piece to that was it was important to me. By that time, my dad had been in politics in South Florida for 40 years. I never made a ton of money. He was a government employee. But he knew everybody. And everybody knew him. And all the judges, all the lawyers. And if I went back to South Florida and went to law school there, I was going to be Al Schreiber's kid. And there was nothing wrong with that. But that wasn't the path I wanted.

[00:03:34] Speaker 1: OK. So you graduated, had some fun while you were at it, I assume. Yeah. Absolutely.

[00:03:38] Speaker 2: Maintained quality of life.

[00:03:39] Speaker 1: Maintained quality of life. Incredible. At some point, did you go work for another firm? Did you start your own firm? Yeah.

[00:03:45] Speaker 2: So I worked throughout law school. And that was even a weird time. Did you really? Yeah. The ABA had rules that you're not allowed to. Right. And I was like, well, that's stupid. Right. You know, the law is an apprenticeship profession. Totally is. Right? And it never made sense to me that they actively discouraged people from getting that experience. So I worked constantly all the way through. In my third year, I got a job as a law clerk with a plaintiff's firm here in San Diego. Kind of old guard plaintiff firm. I had about 40 people, which was large for a plaintiff practice, especially in that era. And I started there and that became my only adult job. And then it got to the point five years ago, four and a half years ago, I had just turned 40. The partners who had founded that firm were all in their mid-70s. The next five years was going to look very different to each of us. You know, no knock on them, no knock on me. It was just the bend of the space-time continuum, you know, was just going to treat us both differently. And so it was time to start something new.

[00:04:38] Speaker 1: So is Singleton Tribor only like five years old?

[00:04:41] Speaker 2: Four and a half. Yeah, it'll be five years in January. I ported over a team of eight. Jerry had like 30 or something that were doing mass tort and fire. Like our official headcount when we started was 46. As of last week, it's at 475 in seven states. Oh my goodness.

[00:04:53] Speaker 1: Incredible.

[00:04:54] Speaker 2: So I mean, we've 10x'ed in the last four and a half years.

[00:04:57] Speaker 1: You have 475 employees. Yeah. That is... Across seven states. That is a lot. It is. You and I have spoken about this. The first time I thought, oh, I really like this guy was when we met over Zoom. I don't know. A year and a half ago, something like that. And you told me about the culture in your firm. And what had happened is one of our sales guys had flagged me, he's like, this Brett guy is like really interesting. You should just talk to him. So he puts me on the phone with you and you tell me about the culture of your firm and the way you treat people. Look, nothing against our amazing profession. And by the way, 100% of what you've said so far, like the law is almost in some sense like the applied engineering of like of society. Like we get to actually fix things. It's incredible. So I couldn't agree with you more about the power of being a lawyer, but lawyers are not necessarily known for treating their employees phenomenally well. That's not the brand. Right. How have you done that?

[00:05:50] Speaker 2: I think being very intentional about it. I think we have very much, look, to be a plaintiff lawyer and to do it at the scale and size that we are doing it, you have to have an exceedingly high risk tolerance about you. And so with that has to come the courage to be willing to fail. I always tell people, don't be afraid to fail, but be terrified of regret. That is really kind of baked into the ethos of what we do. Like my people know that they can make a mistake and it's not going to be a lot of like finger wagging as long as the decision was made with the best interest of the client and the best interest of the firm in mind. I learned a lot from the firm I was with for 16 years, but I really learned a lot, just like anything in law, you learn a lot about what to do, but I've learned way more from watching other lawyers and how not to do things, how not to run a business, how not to take a deposition, how not to cross-examine a witness. It's just like trial. I learned way more from my losses than I do from my wins.

[00:06:56] Speaker 1: That is truly unique. To this day, FileLine has something like 6,000 law firms and I don't know that there's a single one that does it, at least not quite like that.

[00:07:05] Speaker 2: So a friend of mine, when we started the company four and a half years ago, I had a friend of mine who had scaled a tech company and sold it for a kabillion dollars. And I asked her, I said, looking back, what was the moment where you look back and you're like, that was either the right decision. And what she said was she's like, 60 people was this fulcrum point where I needed a full C-suite, the CIO, the CTO, the CFO, every friggin' C under the sun, right? We hit that in the first nine months. And then we did that. So when you bring in people, and I think that is something that has been different about our approach, right, is you bring in people who are looking at process improvements and systems and ways to optimize, and lawyers just don't do that, right? So having a group of people who are singularly focused on ensuring the trains run on time and the back end is there and the operations are there and the systems are there and all of that. Because again, you have the risk tolerance that we have. We're kind of pirates, right? We're kind of lone wolves a lot of times. And then to have people, I think we've touched on this before too, it's I always say, I don't need people to answer my questions, I need people to question my answers.

[00:08:15] Speaker 1: I do think you are doing things in a pretty different way. There are a lot of good trial lawyers, or at least trial lawyers who have had a lot of success, that don't do it that way. Do you think, do you think you need one for the other? In other words, does your success as a firm and a great firm culture, is that making you a better trial lawyer or are the two not related?

[00:08:37] Speaker 2: I think it does because, especially for my teams that run the trials, and really for everybody, because I made a point of that when we did our first all hands after the Tesla verdict, right? I let everybody know, whether you're on the mail team, or answering the phone, or in IT, you play a role in this. Every one of you, even the ones of you who are not client facing, right? You play a role in this and I know sometimes it's hard to see that. But that's why we gotta celebrate those wins and talk about our losses and figure out ways to get better. I've got some people who, I mean they would gnaw their own arm off if they had to, to get the case to where it needs to be. Because they are just that firmly committed to the cause.

[00:09:19] Speaker 1: The grit and determination that the practice of law takes at that level is just, it's extraordinary. I think a lot of people don't realize just how intense it can be. Okay, so you're handling these cases, they're now nationally followed, and I have to wonder, how did you become involved? What motivated you to do this?

[00:09:44] Speaker 2: I had a feeling you were going to ask this. The word you're looking into is, you had to realize, I'm signing up for something here. So yes and no. When I look back, I've had a number of people ask me this lately, like how did you get into this? How did you land here? And it's like so many things we do in life and in law, right? You don't realize at the time, maybe, what it's starting, right? The seedling that you're planting. And I actually go back, I go back 10 years, it's 2015 and I'm back at my old firm and I read an article, it shows up in some news feed or something that I have, about Google and the Google car, right? And this begged, obviously, a question. Who's responsible for the Google car running the stop sign or whatever it was? And it intrigued me. And how is that going to evolve in the practice and in car wrecks and in all these things? And so then I remember, as I started kind of studying more about it, California needed to develop some regulations as more of these companies in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley wanted to test these vehicles. And so the DMV was starting to develop regulations. But they needed someone to help to write them. And so I knew some of the Sacramento leader types and they asked me to kind of get involved. I had a basic working knowledge, right? And then I started doing talks to some of the legislators. And before you know it, you are starting to be seen as kind of a thought leader in this area. And then combine that with the fact that, historically, I tried hard cases. People then saw me as someone who was a subject matter expert in this area and was not afraid to take a swing on a really hard set of facts. And that, for the first time several years ago, led to my first call on a Tesla case. And then I was able to start to dive into those and I started getting more calls on those cases as you start to litigate them. They are higher profile and the news media does follow them and they are interested. And so that is really, you know, kind of the genesis story of how I started getting involved in kind of looking at autonomous vehicles generally and then ultimately with Tesla specifically.

[00:11:50] Speaker 1: So cool. So you start handling these cases and is this the first one to go to trial? You've taken a trial?

[00:11:59] Speaker 2: It's the first one that I've taken to trial and it was the first one in America that was brought to trial on behalf of a third party. The first two cases that had gone to verdict that Tesla had won, the plaintiff was the driver of the Tesla. And what made this case unique was that these were people who had, they didn't own the Tesla, they didn't buy the Tesla, they didn't pull the stalk twice to turn on autopilot, they didn't press the button agreeing to be a part of a beta test. They were just regular people sitting lawfully parked on the side of the road. It's hard for them to go, I'd never park my car lawfully on the side of the road and be standing next to it completely innocent and be struck by a car going 70 miles an hour. Everybody goes, oh my God, this could happen to me. I don't say that. I mean, it'd be a mistrial. I don't have to say it because everybody knows it could be you. And that was the, that was, I think a huge difference. And I have another one of these as we call them third party cases. I have to start in 33 days in Oakland.

[00:13:00] Speaker 1: All right. So let's get into it a little bit. You wound up deposing Andrej Karpathy, which I think everyone would agree is one of the leading lights in artificial intelligence, still to this day, I think is looked at as maybe one of the most important folks in Silicon Valley who brought sort of the LLMs to life, but also has been involved in machine learning for a very long time. This is an important guy. I'm surprised the judge even let you depose him. How does that come about?

[00:13:30] Speaker 2: So he was the director of AI at Tesla for about five or six years. He left in, I think, 2022, 2023. I deposed him last year in 24 in the case that's set to go in Oakland in a little over a month. And so the judge didn't have a say. Andrej lawyered up once I finally got a subpoena.

[00:13:52] Speaker 1: I'm sure. I don't know if you're allowed to share or you're willing to share. I totally understand if you can't, but you shared a story about serving him, his notice of deposition.

[00:14:00] Speaker 2: Yeah. No, I'm happy to share. So we've gotten to a point where there's a certain billionaire class that you just can't get within like a quarter mile of. The guy lives in like some place in the Bay Area. He leaves in like a subterranean garage. He goes into the city, into another subterranean garage, into a private elevator that takes him up to some office. You can't get near him. And so this antiquated idea of the law, like you've been served, sir.

[00:14:26] Speaker 1: It is wild that that's still what it takes. It's insane. In 2025.

[00:14:30] Speaker 2: Yeah. It's bananas. And the law needs to be changed. Right. But that said, it hasn't. And so I have to have a process server follow Karpathy for about four months. I'm pretty sure I spent close to 10 grand trying to get him served because we had to follow him. And one day on his way home, I'm pretty sure he got like a text to like, you know, pick up some kale, you know, at Whole Foods on the way home and we served him in the parking lot. Oh my goodness. I got him as well as, and I managed to get subpoenas on three or four of the other former directors of Autopilot, all of whom have gone on to other tech companies. Because at Tesla, if you are an engineer with true independent engineering judgment, you don't last. He, in fact, described the Autopilot team as his customer. They were a customer of mine. They would come to me and say, we need the neural network to learn something. So it was a very different power dynamic that exists between Karpathy and the AI side and everybody else in Autopilot versus everybody else. Right. Who clearly worked for one person and one person only. I know every word that Elon has said to overhype and oversell and misrepresent the qualities of Autopilot and full self-driving that he has spoken in the last 10 years. What happens is we serve discovery on Tesla for them to admit that he said all of these things. What eventually happened was I pushed him on enough cases, as did a couple other lawyers I'm working with on other related cases, right? We're kind of coordinating what we do. We got them to basically admit that he said all these things as, you know, a corporate admission on behalf of Tesla. Because I told the judge, I go, listen, if they won't give me a clean admission, then I have to take the man's deposition. And the judge looks at him. He's like, he's got a point. Yeah. He's not wrong. And then usually within three days, I get very clean admissions. In each one of those, I present to them an exhibit that I like to call Elon's Greatest Hits, which are all of his lies, right? All of the misrepresentations. And then I bring them to them and I say, when he said this, right, autonomy is a small problem. All the vehicles can drive from New York to L.A. without a touch, right? We're going to be fully autonomous in six months, in two years, blah, blah, blah. It's always right around the corner, right around the corner. I said, did that statement comport with engineering reality of production vehicles at Tesla at that time? And to a person, they all go, absolutely not. My sense right now is that they're going to have to get punched in the face a second time before they figure it out. But it's ultimately a story of betrayal. Because in Miami, my experts testified how all of these things were as untrue the day he said them as they are untrue today, and that he was deceiving consumers. He was deceiving the public. What I get to tell him in Oakland is he not only deceived the public, but he actually deceived his own engineers. He betrayed them. He said things publicly that he knew was not true. And that is a story of betrayal, not just of the people who are buying the cars, but of the very people who are building and designing those cars. And I will tell you, I've been trying cases long enough to know that the singular most powerful human emotion to empower a jury to award giant sums of money is a story of betrayal. And that's what we have here.

[00:17:48] Speaker 1: You seem so excited to do this. I mean, no, legitimately, it's actually kind of incredible. I mean, I remarked when you came in here, you got your light blue jacket on, your t-shirt. I mean, you are a happy guy. And I think a lot of people facing Tesla in that kind of a case would be completely stressed out. So you wear it well. Thank you. It's incredibly impressive.

[00:18:09] Speaker 2: I have basically been, as a result of building the team, as a result of doing all the things that we've done, I was able to make a choice about a year and a half before that to basically become a five-case lawyer, maybe a 10-case lawyer. Five of them are Tesla cases and another five cases that are just of interest to me. And that's all I do when I'm a practicing lawyer, which is about 60% of my time. 60% of my time is just focused on that. The only way I could do that is if I just singularly focused and locked in on it. And how I knew I had gotten there was in preparation for trial in the last case. Tesla had this one expert, one guy alone from exponent, who had billed over $975,000. And I took his deposition, and in the course of that deposition, I realized I understood this stuff better than he did. And I was like, I've got him. That's so cool. I've got him. There's a few of us who are out doing this, and I've got a couple of colleagues who are doing this at a high level, and I respect the hell out of, and I've learned a ton of. And we all stand on each other's shoulders.

[00:19:16] Speaker 1: Camaraderie amongst plaintiff's lawyers in that regard, I think, is extraordinary. It's one of the coolest things about it.

[00:19:21] Speaker 2: In fact, I'm more conversant in it than Tesla's lawyers, because in Miami, for instance, they had six lawyers at counsel table, and they had 11 lawyers in the first two rows along with their staffs. And it was really interesting to me that the different lawyers would handle different experts on liability, and they would know that one issue. But they would ask questions. I'm like, did you all never get in the room and all talk at the same time? Because I do all the time. And I did all of the liability. So I know everybody's role. I'm going to do that again. How many is your trial team?

[00:19:51] Speaker 1: Three. Three. It's build a great firm that can allow you to even do something like this. Correct. You know, dive in, understand the details of the case incredibly well. How do you think about applying technology to those cases, and where, and where does it make sense, and where does it not?

[00:20:06] Speaker 2: You mean in terms of the technology we use for the case? Sure, yeah.

[00:20:11] Speaker 1: Yeah.

[00:20:11] Speaker 2: Yeah. I take the path of least resistance whenever possible, right? I mean, throwing extra bodies at the case to quote unquote build time is of no value to me. Right. So it really is all about finding ways to, you know, to kind of work smarter and to be more efficient. One of the things that this was really one of the first trials as various, I think, AI tools have finally matured to the point where they can really effectively help to get you 50% of the way there. To help with that doc review, to help with that review of that 97-page order, help build out, as we had to there, two different trials. Because I was in federal court in Miami, there was a summary judgment motion and a Daubert motion that didn't get ruled on until 10 days before trial. So there was some stuff that I was thinking we might not be trying that case, and then to be prepared to try it, and again, then to have the tools and the team, you know, to be prepared to, again, quickly pivot, and then, you know, and then candidly work our ass off for the last 10 days. I am sure.

[00:21:12] Speaker 1: Was File9 helpful to you? 100%.

[00:21:16] Speaker 2: And one of the ways, there were a number of for-instances, but some of the deposition tools, and really with the AI tools now, there were a couple of moments during the case where I was literally working on, for instance, you know, one of my experts directs, or certain evidence that I knew I would think I would want to get in. And I was like, wait, I know somewhere in this 96-page order, the court mentioned this thing, mentioned that this evidence applied to this. And so I just ask File9's robot, where in the court's order did it say this, and give me the citation? And it was like, boop, boom, here it is. And there were those kind of moments, right? And helping me, for instance, one of the benefits of these being federal court cases is everybody has to do these very extensive federal court reports, these Rule 26 reports. And so I would then have the AI... These are like the big evidentiary disclosures. Exactly. Gotcha. That the experts would write. And I would say, here's their four reports, in this case, because they withheld evidence, and there was a whole bunch of other issues. And I would throw it in, and I would say, draft me a direct examination with citations. And it gave me something that got me 50% to 60% of the way there. And I will tell you, what that translates to in real time is rather than spending eight to 12 hours to prepare that expert's direct, I spend two. It's fantastic. But where it has really been exceedingly helpful, just as of yesterday, I'm talking to my appellate lawyer who's preparing the post-trial motion. And he's like, hey, can you ask your AI where, in the trial transcript, the judge talked about this issue? And we all knew there was two or three times that we had this discussion. I dumped the whole 16 days of trial transcripts in and say, tell me when this issue was discussed. And just bloop, bloop, bloop. On trial day eight and the afternoon on page 14, there was a robust discussion about this. On trial day 14, there was a discussion about this. Here, there was only three lines mentioned it, but blah, blah, blah. And it gives me the sites. And then I click through, and I send it over. I am so glad. And that's huge, man. Yeah, tell me. Because seriously, to put that in real terms as well, that's the kind of thing that I used to have to have, most likely a law clerk, not even a paralegal, I needed someone with some legal acumen. I literally could look at four to eight hours of a human's time was handled in under 30 seconds with File.AI.

[00:24:03] Speaker 1: That's so great.

[00:24:04] Speaker 2: That's real. That's real value.

[00:24:07] Speaker 1: That's just awesome. But I also think the leveling of the playing field, the 17 attorneys going on 30 or 40 all against you, and now there's something out there that can actually help at least to a degree.

[00:24:18] Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely. No, there's no doubt in my mind that it is a absolute leveler. We were able to prove that they withheld evidence. And there's been a ton of stuff written about it. But they absolutely withheld evidence. And we were able to prove it. Right? Because we learned anything in the digital age. Nothing is ever deleted. Right. It's all out there. We received a substantial, many, many, multiple six-figure sanction award against Tesla. And that included us having to establish all of our time spent. I don't care. Right? Because for me, culturally, we did consider it, actually. But I actually told my partners, I said, if we do that, what we are doing is we are actively looking for our employees to lie to us. When you start tracking every tenth of an hour, you have built into your entire culture an idea that I want you to not be honest with me anymore. And so you're encouraging people to double bill and say that they were doing something when they weren't and then pretend they didn't take a lunch break. No. No. I want nothing to do with it. Whatever upside I would have been able to, some metric that I would have gotten from that, the value of that was nowhere near. It's so silly. Like, am I going to measure their utility by time? No. I'm not. And all I'm going to do is I'm going to create this culture of mistrust and actively want my staff to not be honest with me. And that is the exact opposite of everything that I want my place to stand for.

[00:25:44] Speaker 1: Where do you think this goes? Do you think ten years from now? I mean, one of the reasons I love this story is, you know, I spend too much time talking to folks in Silicon Valley who say things to me like, well, we're just going to replace lawyers. And you hear that story and you think, bro, I don't know what you're talking about. That is impossible. Right.

[00:26:07] Speaker 2: But like, where does this go? So here's what I could say. Robots never going to be able to try the case.

[00:26:13] Speaker 1: No. Of course not.

[00:26:14] Speaker 2: Right? Because that fundamentally is not an IQ issue. It's an EQ issue. Right? Taking it back to where we talked about where we started, right? It's about emotional intelligence. It's a human experience. You can never teach a neural network to have that kind of emotional intelligence, to understand the arc of that timeline and how to take all of this data and to put it in a way that is the emotional, motivating, empowering way. And especially for those of us, I think, who are early adopters, we are going to get the return on that far greater than those who figure this out five or ten years from now. Because they will have already be so deep in the hole, it's going to take a while for them to dig out.

[00:26:59] Speaker 1: For sure.

[00:27:00] Speaker 2: If I have, though, the hope of what it can really do, I do think it can provide tremendous access to justice. I do think a lot of transactional type work. The idea that AI becomes a tool for getting the cases, the right cases, to the right lawyers. That is something. Because right now, we have this perverse situation where the people who get the most calls, the people who get the most market share, are often the people who are just simply spending the most money. I've seen some of the advancements in AI intake. And if there is a way that we can use AI to get the right people, the right clients, to the right lawyers, who are truly the experts in their field because they know how to do it, they're the subject matter experts, and they're not just the one who have spent the most money because that's what we're seeing now. Most of the people who rank high in most markets are not the best lawyers, they're the best marketers. And so if we can get the right people to the best lawyers, and there are AI solutions to get there, then that's a beautiful thing. It is. And I think that is something, if I had a wish list of things that it would do, in addition to the optimization and the efficiencies and helping people to have better quality of life and all of that, which I think all of it can truly come from this. But if we could do that, I think there's tremendous societal good, and it really is a leveling of the playing field.

[00:28:32] Speaker 1: Do you think, you and I seem like we're close to the same age, I think I'm 45 years old. I just turned 45 this year as well. So there we go. Do you think the generation right below us, are they going to be trial lawyers? I wonder. I wonder. And not even that AI is going to be doing the trials, because I'm with you, that's never happening. There's the Seventh Amendment, but also I just think trial is such an engrossing and intense thing that requires just tremendous context. But is there, as a society, I think we get so much out of that confrontation that the law brings, that sort of bends the arc of justice, do you think that's happening with the younger generation? And are you helping that? I mean, do you feel like it's your responsibility to bring those lawyers up and get them in the courtroom? A hundred percent.

[00:29:16] Speaker 2: I don't think we are going to see a shortage of trial lawyers in the future. I think, in fact, what we can show is that this can be incredibly rewarding and incredibly important and work of deep and ultimate concern, but you can also do it without having three divorces, a substance abuse problem, and a mental health breakdown. And I think that that's where the good of so many of these AI tools can really help to balance out. You can do it, and yet you can do it without sacrificing everything else. And if that is what we are able to show the next generation through the adoption, the early adoption of these tools and the integration of it into what we do, then I think we're going to be lined up around the block. I could not improve on that one bit.

[00:30:17] Speaker 1: Brett, thank you so much. Truly an absolute honor, my friend. Thank you so much. That was awesome. Dude, that was so good. Thank you.