Enforcement agencies all over Fulton County to then make sure that these grand jurors are safe. So i think one consideration the court also needs to make in allowing this is the safety of these grand jurors and their concerns that have already been voiced. But ill just say the Georgia Supreme Court observed the grand jury as a Public Institution serving the community might suffer if those testifying today knew that the secrecy of their testimony would be lifted tomorrow. The indispensable secrecy must not be broken except where theres a compelling necessity. Theres been no compelling necessity raised by this defense to pierce this veil of secrecy of the grand jury. What was the cite for that, the last one . Sorry, judge. Where is that coming from . Kessler, judge. Can you spell that one for me . You have that case, judge. In my stack. Can we just pause one moment . Sure. And then the state talked about this, but i wanted to point out, talking about deliberations and the fact it should be when discussing the charges in votes of the indictment. I think all of the questions that mr. Grumened talked about, thats where its going. If were going to do this, which the state does not believe we should, its going to have to be crafted carefully to make sure were in line with the statutes and the case law. All right im sorry. And just one more thing. We talked about the grand jurors and the safety. All these cases are in there for the court, but i want to we have to make sure were keeping that paramount. Theyre asking to be able to call these jurors. These jurors have already said were concerned. Im handing them another copy of the written response that i gave to the court. But because of Public Policy and safety, i think thats another reason why we should not allow this. And finally, the lack of authority. What they stated to the court was signal, which has been vacated. Its really improper even bringing it to the court to say consider it when its not even law. They vacated it, they renounced it. Its not even something the court should be considering or thinking about. There is no authority that allows what theyre asking the court to allow them to do. The indictment, and i said that to the court, the grand jury acted rather quickly is one of the things as the court said, we dont get into deliberations with the jury. They can take as long as they like. They can take as short as they like. I understand it may raise mr. Grubmans eyebrows but a true indictment was returned by a grand jury, and they could have taken five minutes, five hours, or five days. Theres no case law that puts a restriction on how long it should take them. Thats 8081360. And as i stated before, judge, theres just a lack of authority for what theyre asking to do. And attached in the states brief, you will find in 2010, mr. Aurora did the exact same thing. They say they come to the court and theyre asking for permission. Thats because in 2010, a judge in decab county admonished him for the same thing, knocking On Grand Jurors doors, she had to issue a temporary protective order to stop that behavior. The state is in the process of trying to get a copy of the order. We will supplement the record once we get that for the courts consideration as to those findings in that particular case. All right. Your honor, ill let mr. Aurora respond to the personal attacks. Speaking of whats inappropriate. Let me pause right here. Are you finished . I was not, judge. Lets let her finish her piece. Judge, i would say i know you have crafted out some ways that maybe we can do this. The state is not in agreement with that, but if this does happen, the state believes it should be something thats done with your honor present, and with just a foreperson. They can get whatever information that is needed from that one person because theyre the foreperson. I would ask that be something if its done, the state doesnt believe it should be done, but with the court present, and if they ask for the foreperson to be present, and there are well crafted questions given to the court and the state prior to that happening. We ask it does not happen because its not authorized by law. Your honor, i take very extreme exception for ms. Young coming up here and trying to impugn the reputation of my colleague. Let me just lets keep us on track. Im not going to consider it. Its not part of the record. My colleague was this is broadcast live. And you can respond it to on your own. Please let me finish. Its not going to be part of the consideration right now. If you want to handle it outside the courtroom, thats your business. For now, to stay focused, we should focus on the law. Respectfully, it was said on the record and i think i should have the opportunity and mr. Aurora should have the opportunity to respond. There have been many times, many times that the Fulton CountyDistrict Attorneys Office including some of the members that are sitting in the courtroom today, have been called out by courts, by name, with inappropriate things they do in the grand jury, and at trial. So no, i cannot take ms. Youngs word for it that it was done properly. Ms. Young is trying to send my client to prison. And we have the right to know if it was done properly. And she keeps saying theres no case law. As your honor said, there is case law. Instead of creating these wonderful power points that theyre so fond of, read our briefs. The colin case says, we can talk to grand jurors. So the fact that she got up here and lied, lied to the court all right, mr. Grubman. She lied to the court and defamed my colleague. Its over. All right. I wish you would have stopped her from defaming my cocounsel. So where we are, let me just summarize. With motion number 1, with the motion to speak to the grand jurors, i would ask Defense Counsel to supplement their motion. We can do this, i dont think it need to be, since this is something that would be crafted and considered, we can just do this off the docket. We can do it through email. Just a proposal of the questions, the topics, that would be gone into. If we need to follow it up with another hearing to actually hone those, well do that. But i think for each question or Subject Matter you go into, im going to want to see a citation for how this is an actual relevant line of inquiry. And then we can get into the logistics from there. I think theres a way to accommodate the case law cited by the state about the general secrecy but still allowing the defense their ability to make sure that the grand jury fulfilled its duty in the matter recognized by law. As for the motions to unseal the grand jury transcripts, i think we mentioned that ill be taking that under advisement and i have been provided the case law. For the first two motions, ms. Young, if you could provide a copy of the power point to the defense and to me as well. And counsel for one and two, were you desiring supplementing briefing to respond to what we just got . I think the case law is the case law. Mr. Rafferty, did you want to respond . I would just ask respectfully if the court would order on a case by case basis perhaps the government intend on drafting Something Like they have today, and like they did last week in the form of a power point, that it be in the form of a motion that we have an opportunity to read and be prepared so we dont waste the courts time. All right. And then finally, three was mooted. So i think that takes us to just another kind of checkin of where we are. Just a few things on my end before i know we can Start Talking about some discovery issues and wrap up. Obviously, i think it might have hit the docket by now. I think like i said, sometimes theres a delay, but we filed an order on the severance issue. I realized i never actually asked the state at the last motions hearing about the redacted Indictment Issue that mr. Aurora argued and was filed on behalf of mr. Chesebro, the motion to sever counts from the other defendants. Lets see. The August 30th Motion for severance of codefendants, and it lists several of the counts. Essentially how mr. Aurora clarified it is hes asking for a redacted file as trial. I never got the states position on that one. Mr. Wooden addressed this. Hes not here at the moment. Ill step in and pinch hit for the second. As i recall the nature of that motion, one part of it was to sever individual defendants from each other and from the larger case. The Subsidiary Question was whether specific counts would be severed from the indictment. I believe thats i think thats how it was phrased. Then when we discussed it, which is where the Motion Hearings can be useful, evolved into more of just a we would Like A Quote Unquote Dummy Indictment at the actual trial of the case. Thats at least how i interpreted it. I yes, i thought you granted it, you would whiteout or redact it. Thats what im asking for. All separate motions in regards to the end counts. So maybe this is something more we address as a Pretrial Motion. Its not so much a motion to tailor the evidence or what the states allowed to present. Those other counts arent relevant. Its more what is the document the jury should get. I understand, and if i misunderstood at the last hearing i apologize. I wanted to trying to add confusion to a complicated situation already. The state just for the record dont see any basis to sever out any individual counts as to any defendant. But that i think is not what your honor was addressing. And i would suggest this is an issue we can talk about and get to later. Were still, i realize were not talking about a lot of days but were certainly not yet talking about what will go out to the jury, especially since you have been told youre going to be getting dispositive motions. Its somewhat hypothetical. I wanted to raise it that i hadnt heard the states position. Is it safe to presume its sort of granted . Thats all im looking for . Well get there. Its still a lingering issue. I would like to see an order. Well work on it. Actually, i would rather not. Its very difficult for us. But thank you, your honor. So other housekeeping. I think i wanted to flag this as well. Just again, because were on this compressed timeline. Well get more into the mechanics of Jury Selection later this month. Obviously, those are conversations were starting to have with the Court Administration and the sheriffs office, but i did want to flag that the state had filed a motion to use a jury questionnaire. I think thats appropriate here and i think its i dont think you need to. Well do it, so well have a deadline to submit those questions several weeks beforehand. Maybe start crafting those now. I have spoken with mr. Wooten last time, and we didnt necessarily agree, but at least talked about the possibility of getting together and trying to craft questions that we all might agree on and then maybe having two separate sections assuming there are some that the state wants that we dont want and vice versa. We can submit all that maybe in a joint filing. That sounds wonderful to me. I also want to flag that as i highlight more in the severance order, were going to make an attempt because i think my initial review of the speedy trial case law, is that its somewhat uncertain of when a trial commences so were going to be making the attempt to have this jury sworn by the deadline of november 5th. Maybe that means a weekend or two is involved. But regardless, i just want to warn you when it comes to the questions you submit on there, were probably going to have to adopt the federal practice of a clock and a timeline, and you have so much time per panel and however you want to use it to see fit, and you can ask 100 questions but you may not be able to follow up on all 100 of them. So i just want to lay that expectation out there. A different topic, something to think about. Theres a trial going on right now, actually the jury is deliberating in federal court, several federal judges and a case in new york, have done a modified trial schedule, just if you get early out, its something the court might consider for a lengthy trial like this. I can get you the specifics but basically i think they go from like 8 30 to 3 00, 8 30 to 2 30, Something Like that, with maybe one 30minute break, two 15minute breaks. What the judge in that case told us through years of research is he said if you look at the transcript pages you actually wind up basically getting the same amount of words in at trial. But particularly for a lengthy case, the state said four months, not including Jury Selection, it just might make things more comfortable. Maybe if the court would entertain an alternate schedule instead of just 9 00 to 5 00. That might be something that makes everyone a little more comfortable, particularly the jurors who are going to have to be here for i think the court said maybe eight months. Between four and eight months. Something to think about, your honor. When you say modified, you mean just a shorter day . Shorter day, stats a little earlier, ends earlier. Fewer breaks in the middle. It tends to get things done quicker. I was very skeptical of it when it was proposed to me in another case. And then actually another lawyer i know just finished a twomonth trial, 2 1 2month trial in federal court and they went on that, i think it was judge patton, went on that schedule, and the jurors apparently absolutely loved it, the court loved it. So something to be considered if you would. Well see. Initially, you know, the reaction was going to be four full days a week. We would follow the Aps Precedent of taking likely friday off to handle other business and let the jurors recover. And in terms of a strict we shall have a break at this point in the morning and that point in the morning, so far i found that jurors personal needs dont run on a clock like that, so we have to take the breaks where they come. And so, well see. But the idea is going to be four full days, at least a week, when we get to the evidence. Mainly, i wanted to flag that it might be different than what we have seen here in the courthouse before by necessity. We are aware. I think the case law is pretty clear, your honor, when the trial starts and were aware of that issue. We wont do anything to unnecessarily delay it. Its clearly going to be a challenge. I dont know that theres anyone really in Fulton County who hasnt heard of the case, or anyone who doesnt have a strong opinion one way or the other about the former president and the people who associated with him. So we recognize the challenges and we will do Everything Possible to move as quickly as possible. Hope the state will join us on this one. Mr. Wade, if you wanted to add anything. We have every confidence that the court is capable and qualified to set the trial schedule. Well adhere to whatever. Im hoping to input any time. All right, and the last thing i would say is obviously seeing the new motions that have come in the door, mr. Rafferty might be pleased to hear i will absolutely be hoping for prehearing briefing on the Supremacy Clause issue and the Immunity Issue as well. I dont think ms. Powell joined on the immunity yet. Not yet. Thats all i have. So mr. Rafferty. Thank you. Your honor, i have been on this case probably for a month. And on august 30th, shortly after i got into this case, i sent a Detailed Brady Request to the government. Those brady obligations as your honor knows are independent of their Discovery Obligations as it relates to the hard drive. They have a due process obligation to turn over to me favorable information. And i didnt send them some blanket request saying give me everything under the sun. It was a very, very pointed request on august 30th that addressed two Critical Issues for ms. Powell. That is number one, she wasnt behind this incident in Coffee County which forms the basis of her inclusion in this indictment. Number two, that whatever happened in Coffee County, theres ample evidence that it was authorized. I have asked for that very specific evidence. In response to my letter on august 30th, i heard nothing from the state. This week, i sent an even more tailored request, a copy of which i can provide to your honor, asking for very specific information, because i have spent the past month or so trying to figure out what happened and have gathered ample evidence showing those two things. That ms. Powell was not behind all this, and that it was authorized. I filed a motion last night that sets out all the evident that i have been able to find on my own, which i hope the state has. Okay. But the most important thing that i found, your honor, is a report by cnn, which i have been able to confirm, that there is a letter, a letter of invitation from Coffee County on january 1st of 2021, that was sent, and it was sent not to ms. Powell. It was sent to another lawyer inviting folks to come down to Coffee County and do whatever it is they do. What does that establish, your honor . Two things. One, what i have been saying since last week in my severance motion, in my motion last night, but ill keep banging the drum on it. This was not ms. Powell. Thats number one. But number two, that this was authorized. It was authorized. And i have asked for that. I have not asked for eight terabytes of discovery. This is a handful of documents. We have eight hoirs on this side. Im pretty sure they know how to attach a document to an email. In response to that email this week, like my letter i sent in august 30th, i heard squat from the state. So they sit here and say, your honor, they are open and theyre going to turn stuff over. I have been as clear as day about specifically want im entitled to under the constitution, due process, brady v. Maryland, independent of any Discovery Obligations they have, that is exculpatory evidence. They have it, your honor. I have a reason to believe they have it, and they dont repspond. I have a motion, im going to