Code Enforcement Board - Special Meeting

Ready. All right, good morning, everyone. We call the July 1st, 2026 Special Magistrates' Hearing to order. The first item is case number CEBD 2400524, Mildred H. Neary.

And Your Honor, based on this one, we are actually going to dismiss this one or request a dismissal on this one because we got permits. Okay.

That's correct, right?

Yeah.

for the record jim davis supervisor community resource officers they they did receive the permits they've been issued and the work has began good good all right thank you all right based on the sworn testimony and evidence presented i find that respondent is compliant with the administrative order entered on october 8 2025. respondent has put on notice that future violations of chapter 88 building regulations section 3.2 Responsibilities for residential properties, including structures, vacant buildings, and vacant or unimproved lots of the City Code of Ordinances will cause the respondent to be deemed a repeat violator and subject to a fine of up to $500 per day for each new violation beginning on the day the violation occurred. All right, then we'll turn to new business. Case number CEZN25-00088, Justin Junda. Is the city ready to proceed?

Yes, your honor. And we also, Mr. Boone, Jackson Buddha is here as well for the respondent in this case. Through discussions between the city and Mr. Boone on behalf of Mr. Junda, the parties have come to an agreement on this matter. We're going to agree to continue this case to our September docket. However, Mr. Junda is going for a variance hearing this coming Tuesday. and we want to put it on the record that if the variance is granted, the respondent will move the fence in question to back behind the ECL, or to be more accurate, what's detailed in his plans within 15 days of receiving variance. If he does not receive the variance, then within 15 days he'll remove the unpermitted parts of the fence.

Okay. So other than me continuing the hearing, is there any points you want me to put on the record?

No, I just wanted to put the agreement and the information and what's with the parties on the record as well.

Okay. What would the date of September hearing be? Thank you. All right, then case number CEZN25-00088, Justin Junda, is to be rescheduled to the September 2, 2026 special magistrate code enforcement hearing. Good job. All right, the next matter is CESW26-0011, Hawks Run Development, LLC. Is the city ready to proceed?

Yes, Your Honor. This is yours, right? Oh, it's already on there? Great.

Yeah. It's okay.

Good morning, your honor morning for the record. David Lipker, I'm a certified code enforcement officer for the city of Venice. The address of the violation is 602 Bird Bay Drive, Venice, Florida 34285. The zoning is P. U. D. Planned unit development. The owner of record is Hawks Run Development LLC. On Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. I was contacted by the city of Venice. Stormwater engineer Steve Barron's because the required work on the ponds was not completed. This was a previous case from 2025. It involves the unlawful obstruction of stormwater to ditches and ponds. Okay. On October 10th, 2025, Mr. Behrens led a site visit with the Hawks Run representative by the name of Jason. City of Venice stormwater technician Kevin Barrett and myself The work required to be done in the ponds and to the ditch improvements was communicated. However, the ditch improvements were, excuse me, the ditch improvements were received. However, the ponds were not. Technician Kevin Barron took photos of the violation on April 2nd, 2026. The locations that needed work were already given to the owner and were identified in a map, which should be, this right here is an overview of the Hawkshorn property in green. The second one is the overview of the violation area that I just spoke of. Specifically, it's a dry pond near Bird Bay Circle and the entrance to the pond near Bird Bay West, which was consistent of vegetative matter and debris that was hindering the flow of stormwater. These are photos from April 2nd. On Wednesday, April 20, April, I personally observed the violation mentioned by the stormwater department. I spoke with Hawks Run owner Kristen Van Heck via telephone and advised her of the violation. I also left a voice message for managing partner Jason. A notice of violation and notice of hearing was sent via email and certified mail to the address. and file and confirm with the Hawks one owner Chris event heck they were provided 60 days to correct the violation according to city events code 74 dash 2, 6, 4. On June 22nd 2026 and yesterday afternoon I visited property in the stormwater violations remain and they do not appear to have been addressed in any fashion. and I have no correspondence in any fashion with Hawks Run References Matter during the 60 plus days the violation was identified.

Okay, is there anyone here on behalf of Hawks Run Development? Has anyone signed up to speak? No?

I don't have anyone signed up.

I'm sorry?

I do not have the respondent signed up to speak.

All right, thank you. So what is the city asking for?

Well just for clarification. We'll call Kevin Barrett. The city will call Kevin Barrett. Mr. Barrett, you work with the city of, could you please state your name for the record?

Yes, Kevin Barrett. Speak a little bit closer. Kevin Barrett, storm water technician too.

And you familiar with this property correct, yes, I am and you're familiar with the violations involved in this property and you've seen the pictures could you please explain to the magistrate what needs to be done to correct these violations.

The pond basically needs to be restored back to its normal. Cleanliness of the. Cattails and other vegetation needs to be removed. to make the water flow. So we don't have any backup upstream from obstruction in the pond.

So and again, just looking through these pictures, all those dead and dried cattails, that is That's the obstruction that needs to be cleared correct because the storm water is not flowing properly correct. And just to give an overview those circular areas are the ones that that is those are the areas that the 2 areas that need to be cleared that's correct. And I see there's like is that it appears to be a drainage ditch that kind of horizontal line that goes into the lake to the road.

Bird Bay is required to clean. They're part of the ditch, but from the circle out would be Hawks Run's responsibility.

Okay. Again, just for your honor's clarification, what we're seeking for in terms of correction of this property. Okay, thank you. Yeah.

Anything further from the city?

No. Recommendation is how long?

30 days?

Your honor we're going to recommend that Hawks run begins clearing this pond is retention pond within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day. The issue.

Our next hearing is in so September correct.

Correct your honor.

All right. Anything else. No your honor. All right. We'll close the hearing. Based on the sworn testimony evidence presented, I find respondent in violation of section 62-1 and section 74-297. Respondent is given until August 1, 2026 to correct the violation by removing all of the cattails, vegetation, and any other debris from the pond in order to restore it to its normal cleanliness level. to enable the water to accumulate and to run through there correctly. If the violation is not corrected by that date, a fine may be imposed of up to $250 per day for each day the violation continues beyond the specified deadline. The case will be heard at the September 2, 2026 Special Magistrate hearing beginning at 10 a.m. to determine if the order has been complied with and whether a fine should be imposed. All right, the next matter. is citation appeals. The first is case number CEM 126-00196, Jose and Catherine Rekima.

is the city ready to proceed yes your honor and on that one um we've come to a agreement with the parties in regards to dismiss the case uh they've already paid their appeals fee so we've agreed to basically credit them the 25 dollars towards the minimum uncontested fee so they have to be ordered to pay another 50 dollars to make the 75 dollars okay the total mr davis did you want to say anything

He's correct, sir. What we're asking for is that we accepted the $50 and the respondent agreed to surrender his $25 fee to make the $75 fee. Okay. All right.

We'll close the hearing. And based on the agreement of the parties, respondent shall forfeit the appeal filing fee of $25 and respondent is assessed the civil penalty in the amount of $50 plus the recording fee if not paid within 10 days. All right, next matter, CEM 126-00189, John and Nancy Eisenman. Is the city ready to proceed? Yes, Your Honor.

Do I come up there?

You will have an opportunity to speak. We'll be able to provide you with the microphones when it's your turn, sir. Yeah, feel free, it's right there.

What your honor morning. I'm court enforcement officer they want to certify and regarding case on CMI 26 0, 0, 1, 8, 9. May 12. 2026 at approximately 7 in the morning. We're conducting a water restrictions week. on the island and when I stopped at 404 Harbor Drive South, I saw the sprinkler systems running. That was about 7.22 in the morning. I took a short video to show the violation, which is under Chapter 74-48 of the Venice Code for Enforcement. And I also took a short video of the violation.

Let's see if we can play the video.

Where is it? Oh, I got the X out of that.

Right here.

Okay. This picture is running on the site. The ground's wet. The other one's the other zone. And also on the agri-zone. This is 4-0-4.

That's it. Are you asking that that be admitted into evidence? Yes, Your Honor. Yes, the video is admitted into evidence. You are Mr. Eisenman, I presume? Yes. Mr. Eisenman, you have the right to ask. This isn't your opportunity yet to present testimony, but if you have any questions for Officer Luna, you can ask him at this point.

I don't dispute the violation.

I have... Well, let me make sure the city's finished with their case first. Is there anything else that the city wants to present?

The only thing a few questions. The new city word that the water restrictions put he put in place correct, yes, and the city ran a newspaper newspaper ad to that correct, yes, it did OK and do we have copies of those records.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Sit down. No, you got it right. And this is a copy of this is a true and accurate copy of the newspaper ad that that ran in the gondolier correct. Yes, OK. And this is notice that the water restrictions are going into place. OK. And what was the was the property allowed to at certain times water their lawn. Yes, but it up to 4 in the morning up to so anytime after 4 in the morning was it would be a violation of this. I know the further questions at this time.

Do you want to identify the date of this publication?

Yes.

It's up at the very top.

April 15th, 2026.

We request to be brought into, put into evidence, Your Honor.

Thank you. Well, Mark, the video is Exhibit A, and this is Exhibit B, and that is also admitted into evidence. Okay. Anything else the city wants to present? No, Your Honor. Okay. Mr. Eisman, is there something you'd like to say? Yes, please. Does he have a microphone?

Yes.

Okay.

Oh, okay. Sir, please come sit up here next to me.

State your name for the record, please.

John Eisman. Thank you. I don't deny that it was published in the newspaper because the ordinance requires that it does so, but I don't know many people that read the newspaper anymore. I sure don't. So I have basically two... A general appeal and a specific one. My general one is I don't think the city has done an adequate job in notifying people. I mean, there was the notice in the newspaper, but there are other avenues that they could take, and I don't know that they did. I didn't receive any automated phone calls, postcard, email, text, street signs. It seems to me that that they could have done a better job of warning and notifying people. Now, of course, there's the website. So just yesterday I went to the website and I clicked on residents and they listed 37 categories of issues and not one of them has to do with sprinklers. Now, I did do a deeper search and I did find a notice about the warning, but it seems that something this important should have a higher visibility on the website. So that's my general appeal as I just don't think that the city has done an adequate job in notifying and warning people. My specific appeal is that my wife and I were on a special anniversary trip and we were out of the country from May 2nd to May 17th. When we returned on the 17th, I found the certified mail and notice of the warning um now it was during that time may 2nd to may 17th that the city issued a new warning on may 6th stating that violation citations instead of warnings will be starting on may 11th well first of all i never got any warning up to that point but both The notification of citations and my infraction occurred during while we were out of the country and I don't know what I could have done about, anything about it. That's basically my appeal.

All right. Does the city have any questions?

No questions but I will call, Jim Davis as rebuttal, your honor.

Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to say, Mr. Eisenman?

I'm sorry.

Is there anything else that you wish to say before the city presents additional testimony? No, sir. Okay. Thank. Could you please return to your seat then? Thank you.

Mr. Davis, could you please, Officer Davis, excuse me, could you please advise the court when the notice, the task taken that code enforcement did to notify people of the upcoming water charges, water citations?

The utilities department included us at the very beginning. We were working in conjunction with Sarasota County. Sarasota County began issuing their citations, and it was requested that we begin to issue them also. However, I told my guys we're going to wait two weeks, and we're going to go out and find as many as we can. We all took sheets with the restrictions on it, All together we ended up finding 38 in those 2 weeks and gave all the morning's hand in the sheets did everything we could to find the ones that we could utilities also sent out letters, I think that's one of the letters he might be talking about to those that were directly connected to the water system and not to a well or to reclaim water to the reclaim system. So we did everything we could and even delayed in doing citations. We made sure, as the code requested, we put it in a newspaper, but we also put it on all of our social media at the Venice Police Department as well as the City of Venice. And then we began to issue the citations. And so as far as giving people warning, there wasn't much more for us to do as a code enforcement department except for delay issuing the citations for at least two weeks while we tried to find as many as possible. And when did you start writing actual citations for the water violations?

I believe that was on the 11th of May. The 11th of May. And the newspaper article, which under, what ran in April 16th, correct? Right. And under 74-48, the only notice requirements is to put a notice in the newspaper. That's correct. Nothing further, Your Honor.

Mr. Eisenman, do you have any questions of Officer Davis based upon the testimony he just presented? Does the city wish to present anything else?

No, Your Honor.

I have concerns about notice, number one, and about the fact that he was out of town during the period of time he was cited. Can you address the city's position on those two issues?

Number one, again, we can't control for every one being in in town or receiving the notice i per that's why again per the per the ordinance we have to put a newspaper we have to put in the newspaper because we can't guarantee obviously to notify the entire city or who's on who's not on well or reclaimed water is that's a that's a probably nearly impossible task And we can't control if someone is out of town. What we can control is what's required by us under the ordinance, which is to put it in a newspaper. And then we took additional steps. We did take time to give warnings. Utilities sent mailers out. We did everything that was A, legally required of us, but B, did more upon that so that to avoid someone trying to say that I never got noticed, that no one could be surprised. We did everything that, honestly, not only was legal, but we could potentially require. There's always going to be someone in these sort of situations, especially with extreme droughts and extreme water hazards, that's going to say, I never got noticed. It's the same with, say, with the mailbox rule. I can't control whether or not someone actually physically receives it.

Right, but there is an actual mailbox rule.

But that's what we have in this one, and that's our newspaper. Now, it's one thing if we came in here and we didn't put any newspaper in the notice, I'm like, well, you didn't follow the steps. If I put notice in the mailbox, it's presumed that you received it. we followed our legal requirements to give notice.

And I, and I, and I don't think I'd have the concern if he were in town. Yeah, that's my, that's my biggest issue with this. Um, because he has to have the ability to comply. And if he's not in town, he doesn't have the, I guess you could argue he could have called somebody. He could have done any number of things, but All right, I don't, unless there's something else. Can I add something? Yes.

We've issued 86 citations since we began issuing the citations. At least 11 of them were people that were out of state Every one of those 11 have paid their citation. And the reason we don't void citations or make special circumstances is just because the equity of how we issue the fines. If we started out by telling the people that were out of state and were unaware that they didn't have to pay their citations, then we would continue that process throughout the 86. But the fact that the out of state people paid their citations, they called me and they agreed that their landscaper should have changed it, but they're going to pay the citation, then we try to keep that equity as far as how we issue those citations and fines.

And to that end, it creates, we don't have everyone's plans. We can't control if someone's out of town, especially here where we have snowbirds, we can't control if someone has a vacation at the same time, because...

if that's the case then everybody has an exemption at that point well everyone out of town potentially would have an exemption to this regardless of the situation i'm not being critical not in the least i'm just concerned about notice and ability um and and that's my that's my issue i mean i appreciate you've done you did everything you could everything that you're you're obligated to do um but he wasn't here. So, and I understand why some snowbirds might, it was $75 I think was the fine. So it's probably easier to send a $75 check than it would be to come down here and contest this. So, um, all right, I'm ready to make my ruling. Based on the sworn testimony, and I'm doing this with much reluctance, Mr. Eisenman, I want you to know that. Based on the sworn testimony and evidence presented, I find that respondent did not violate section 74-48 of the city code of ordinances and that the citation is dismissed. The $25 appeal filing fee shall be refunded. And I'll make a statement that the only reason I'm doing this is I accept you at your word that you were not in town at the time the violation occurred. That's the only reason. All right, thank you. You're fine, I already ruled. All right, the next case is CEM 126-00231, George Joinson and Anna McClain.

City is ready to proceed.

Okay.

For the record, community resource supervisor, certified code enforcement officer Jim Davis. Case number CEMI 26-00231. The address of violation is 417 Nassau Street South, Venice, Florida. The zoning is RSF3 residential single family. The owners of record are Samuel George Joinson and Anna McClain. On May 15th, 2026 at 6 a.m., I was conducting a water restriction sweep of Venice Island when I stopped at 417 Nassau Street and observed a sprinkler running at 635 a.m. I took a short video to show the violation. And even though I misquote the name of the street, my follow-up with the property clearly shows 417 Nassau Street South as a property in violation of Chapter 7448 of the Venice Code of Ordinances. I would like to enter one photo and one video into evidence as City Composite Exhibit 1. This is video. This is Salerno Street. This is the actual address of the property. Is that showing? Yeah, okay. So I mentioned it on Sir, I believe Sorrento or something in the video, but that's the property. It was 417 Nassau. I'd like to enter that photo and video as City Composite Exhibit Number 1. So admitted. A citation was issued and sent certified mail on May 15, 2026. On May 29, 2026, Mr. Joynson filed an appeal. of the citation claim the city did not warn him properly of the water restriction as required by code. I would like to show a copy of the vendors Venice gondolier April 5th 2026 page, a day as attached to the agenda of the required notification. It would just and that's the same notification as required by our code.

And I'm sorry to say what the date was of that.

That is April 5th, 2026, page 8A.

Thank you.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you. Anything further?

No, Your Honor.

Mr. Joyntzen, you have the right at this time to ask Officer Davis any questions, not to present your side of the case yet, but just to ask him any questions if you have any. I do, Your Honor. Okay.

You can come here.

All right. Good morning, Your Honor. My name is Sam Joinson. So I have two or three questions. One, are you able to produce evidence that the City Council approved this per City Code 74-78? We have that, right?

It's 74. 2,008. That's our code.

Could you yeah, thank you.

Is that the code or the City Council's approval of the code to be enacted.

That was about a week before the violations you have that ordinance that they they passed.

And for the record, this was enacted in 1982, correct?

The code, yes.

Is this, can you clarify if this is the code that was enacted in 1982 or the current city approval for this?

The code is 74-48. This is resolution 2026-08 that was from the city council putting the current water restrictions into place. Thank you.

Okay, second question, were you able to cross-reference or check that the people you cited, you also warned all of them? Or was it only a percentage or none of them?

We only warned the people that we were able to during the two weeks where we were going out and trying to find everything. So that's as far as code enforcement. If you're asking the city, the city did it through the paper as the code required.

No, I'm just trying to understand if you understand if there were any actual overlap between the people you warned and the people that ended up actually getting cited with fines. I'm not sure what your question is. If you do a sample population and warn so many people and then you go out the next time and you don't or you violate people. I tracked it all.

We have 36, 38 warnings. Two of them were reclaimed water. So 36 total warnings before we started

On May 11 and the reclaimed waters because they're hooked up into the city's water system, not the city water system cleaned up into a system.

What's called reclaim water that they it's like water that comes back and they treat it. But you can't drink it or nothing so there's no restriction on that.

But can you confirm or deny that those 36 warnings overlapped with the citations that the city gave out.

We had about 3 or 4 repeat from the warning so.

I'm not sure my question is coming across correctly if you more than 5 people and then you go out the next day and you go to 5 different houses and you give them a citation they would have no clue or warning so I'm trying to understand if those 36 people you followed up identically. with those 36 people for a citation or was it random you just checked one time and then checked again every every day that we did a sweep was different okay so it's feasible to say that people could have been warned and correctly identified it but then the next time you go out it's totally random so it could be a completely set of different completely different set of people that's correct okay I have one more question. You mentioned reclaimed water. Were you able to validate each home you went to? Like how did you know they were reclaimed water at the homes you went to?

There's actually a utility map with all the lines of where the reclaimed water goes to. And so our main focus was on areas where there weren't reclaimed water. And then also before we issued citations, we would contact utilities, give them the addresses, and they would verify whether or not they're on reclaimed water.

Okay. So are you saying there's a difference in terms of citation between reclaimed water and privately supplied water? There's a difference in the restrictions. Okay. And then for my specific citation, did you check for the water that was being watered on the property being micro irrigation or not micro irrigation? I checked to see if whether or not it was reclaimed water. For my property? Yes. And what did you confirm with my property? They said it was not on reclaimed water. Okay. And what does that mean in terms of restriction?

It means you fall within the restrictions that we currently have, which for your address would be Thursdays, either between the hours of 8 and 1159 or midnight to 4.

Okay.

That's all my questions, Your Honor. Thank you very much.

Does the city have any follow-up of Officer Davis? Briefly.

Again, Officer Davis, the ordinance doesn't require you to speak with every resident of the city in regards to these restrictions, correct?

It does not.

It requires notice in the newspaper, correct?

It does.

And that was done before citations were issued? Yes, it was. Okay. Nothing further, Your Honor.

All right. Thank you. Does the city have anything else to present? No, Your Honor. All right. Mr. Joynson, you may now present testimony on your own behalf.

Thank you, Your Honor. Sam Joynson again. Sorry, just give me one second. Okay, so Your Honor, I would just like to lead with my story is similar with a slight difference to Mr. Eisenman here. It's based on the concept that I was not aware and did not see any restrictions beforehand. Looking back on it now, I you know, wish there were more things to see out there. I did do research similar to Mr. Eisenman. I went on Facebook. I do not go on social media. I do not have accounts. I did find them posting it there. I did see it on the newspaper. I'm not denying that. I'm also not denying the citation. The water was on there, but Hopefully I can explain why it was there. So first of all, the circumstances, normally a lot of that front yard is on micro irrigation. We actually had a drunk hit and run driver run across our entire lawn and take it out. I'd be happy to actually replay the video and show you where it was. we had to convert a lot of the front yard to the normal irrigation until I repaired it. So that is one reason why the entire thing was on regular water and not micro irrigation, which would be to the code. Secondly, again, it is the case of just me being unaware and not seeing any of it. There are a lot of modes today to aware people. There's notification systems, emergency systems where you can contact by phone or by email or more modern modes of communication i don't fault the city to any of this because they everyone knows here today they were following code they did in the newspaper and they even went above and beyond and posted on facebook as well so i think they did a good job at it but there are people that slip slip through the cracks like myself and mr eisenman and again i think we all realize like something from 1982 would be great to be updated and change to more fit you know modern society the ask is that the citation be dismissed and special leniency just provided so I do not have to pay the citation I've already made the changes and fixed the micro irrigation on the lawn so it is in compliance you know sorry it happened but there are special cases like us and even other people like you mentioned that are up in the north and wherever they are that It would be easier to pay the $70 fine compared to full-time residents like us that just want to see the right course carried out. So that's my ask. Those are my thoughts, and I hope you can take that into account, and I would appreciate it.

Before you ask any questions, what is micro-irrigation?

Truthfully, A, I don't know, B, it's irrelevant, because it's... Well, I understand, I'm just curious.

You've used the term micro-irrigation. What is that?

So micro-irrigation is drip irrigation or small spigots that are more dismissed, missed, and it, per the code that I researched, would be allowed outside of the times. So I was trying to say we did have that, but it was run over by the drunk driver on our property.

All right, do you have any questions?

Sir, you said you saw the newspaper ad? I did not, no.

Could you try again?

I thought as I heard you say you saw the newspaper ad. And I heard him say that too. It sounded to me like he was saying he saw it when he was doing his research.

That's how I interpreted what he said.

Nothing further, Your Honor.

Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to say, Mr. Joynson?

No, I did not. I made one records request for the question I asked Mr. Davis earlier on the City Council's approval and the newspaper ad, and I did not receive any of that. So that's why I asked the questions earlier, but no further questions past that.

All right, thank you. Does the City have anything in response?

I'd move into evidence since it was referenced, Resolution 2608. So admitted. Your Honor, again, this is the issue with exception cases because everyone's, this is why the code, regardless of the age, regardless of the requirements, the code is the code. It was supposed to put the ad in the newspaper because we can't control, because every other time someone's going to come up and say, well, I didn't say that you should have done more because I do X, Y, and Z. I can't control the ever-changing moving of those gold lines. And no one can, that's why I was like, okay, well, this is what our, this is what our code says. Um, and that's what we comply with. Um, it's the same, like there's always going to be, especially in these cases when it's, we're in extreme drought and we have to take corrective act. We have to take action to that effect. And how do we do, especially when you have to do it said what citywide there's someone's always going to say, I didn't get noticed because of X, Y I don't use that anymore. I don't do that. Well, that's what the code says. What we have to do.

Understood. Um, I, I want to make clear. that there's a difference between this Mr. Eisenman's case and Mr. Joensen's case. I was not persuaded at all by Mr. Eisenman's arguments concerning notice being provided, how notice was provided, and I've not been impressed by that in Mr. Joensen's argument either. My only reason for finding that Mr. Eisenman did not violate the, uh, the ordinance was because he wasn't in town when the infraction occurred. Period. That's it. I'm not questioning the city's ordinance. I'm not questioning the notice the city provided. I'm not questioning anything that the city did in regard to this whatsoever. Um, and for that reason, in this case, based on the sworn testimony and evidence presented, I find that respondent violated section 74 dash 48 of the city code of ordinances. Respondent shall forfeit the appeal filing fee of $25. Respondent is assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $150 plus the recording fee if not paid within 10 days. All right, that concludes that hearing. Our next hearing is September 2nd, 2026 at 10 o'clock a.m. And unless there's anything further, we will adjourn this hearing. That's it, Your Honor.