And When you think about that kind of controversy of defending people that maybe the norm would say, you know, why are you defending them? How do you kind of navigate the dual truths of situations like that?

I mean, it's twofold.

One, every case that I take on, I have to view it.

And every case is supposed to be viewed as the person is innocent in the lesson until they are proven guilty.

And that... decision comes at the very end of the case so like while i'm defending so far they're presumed innocent and if you believe in the system and you believe that all of us have the right to be presumed innocent unless and until the state can prove otherwise then you know you have to put the state to the burden of proving otherwise which is what defense lawyers do right we don't you evidence we don't go and destroy evidence we're not you know that's not the system that we have here in canada we have a system where we just we're just putting the crown to the test and putting the police test because and most people would agree they don't want to live in a police state We don't want to live in a world where we work really, really hard and the state can just send in some troops to break into your house and take whatever you've spent a lot of time acquiring.

They need a reason and they need justification and they need authorization in order to do these things.

And so our job is just to make sure that the state does its job, the police do their job.

And I'm not even sure if you can watch them during it, but like, what are some of the things that they get so wrong that you wish people would know?