Hello, I'm Didier Stevens, senior handler with the Internet Storm Center. After Brad posted his diary entry about the Emotet malware, we had an anonymous reader who submitted another sample with the malicious document and I quickly started to analyze it and saw that it uses dosfuscation. So with my typical method to analyze dosfuscation malicious documents that I've also written diary entries about, I started the analysis but soon encountered a problem that I'm going to show you how to solve here. So with OLE dump, I can look at the submitted file and we see macros in stream 14 and 15. So I start with stream 14 and decompress the macros like this. And here we can see strings that doesn't tell us much. So let's look at 15. Okay, yeah, and here immediately with the carrots here, you can see that we are dealing with some commands that are probably dosfuscated. Here you can see the MD from CMD-V and CHR and so on. Yeah, and then here you can see more. Okay, so I can indeed analyze this by extracting the strings with my RE search tool. So I'm extracting the strings also, the empty strings, the instance for empty strings, and I don't want to quote so unquoted like this. And here I have all those strings and now I can concatenate them together with my sets command. So join them, no separator like this. And here you can see all the carrots and I can get rid of them with the SED command, the stream editor. So I'm going to substitute carrot, but it's a special character in regular expressions so I have to escape it.  Now you probably don't recognize anything, but here for example you can see HTTP in reverse. So this string here actually has to be reversed. So I'm going to do this with my Python per line tool. This is a Python program that accepts text files and input lines and for every line it will execute a Python expression that you pass it as argument. So the line itself is just in the line variable and I want to reverse that line and you can do that in Python by taking a slice from beginning and from the end and with step minus one and that's how you reverse a string in Python. And then indeed here you can see HTTP and so on. Now it's not that readable because you see there are still things in between here. But if we take a closer look then you will see that there are actually strings inserted here in between. And that's something that I was not expecting. So for example here you can see digital then a string and here the L web experts. So this is digital web experts but this string here is in between. So let's go back to the macro code itself here. And here you can see those strings here and these are strings that contain dosfuscated commands but here you have other strings and if you take a close look you will see it's the mid-b command, the right command here, the left command but with indexes and lengths that are much longer than the string. So this command here on this small string but with this long position and length will actually just yield an empty string. So all of those commands here yield empty strings. So we can exclude them. One way to exclude them is to to grep, to eliminate them by doing a grep for mid, mid-b, right, left and so on. But there's another trick and that's how we can actually use the dosfuscation that's being used here. The dosfuscation comes with those carrots. So what I can actually do is grep for strings that contains those carrots because those are dosfuscated while these string here don't contain them. So they are not dosfuscated. So let's do this. I'm going back to my command here where I extract the strings and before I extract those strings I'm going to grep like this for a carrot but again it's a special symbol in regular expression so I have to escape it like this and then indeed you can see the PowerShell command. Here is a PowerShell new web object network client. So it's a downloader with a couple of URLs. Then it will try, write this to disk and then of course try to execute it.


Sir, you have mentioned that yoga accentuates your perceptions and through yoga you reach the creator. That means those who do not learn or practice yoga cannot reach the creator. Is that so? No, because there is nobody who is not practicing yoga. Everybody is practicing yoga haphazardly. When we say the word… when we use the word yoga, we are not talking about a particular practice. There is nothing in the existence which is not yoga. The word yoga means everything has become one. The word yoga means union. So it's a grand unification of the existence. When we say yoga, we are talking about a level of perception where you have seen everything as one. So you're sitting here, this is a kind of yoga. Just being able to sit in one place is a kind of yoga and that's what most of the yogis did, isn't it? Just sit in one place. You're breathing, there's another kind of yoga. But are you doing yoga systematically or are you doing it haphazardly? That's the only question. But you're doing some yoga, isn't it? Your heart is beating. It is a kind of yoga. But is it happening in the best possible way? That's the only question, isn't it? So if I do not do yoga, can I… does it mean to say, I have no possibility? No. Because yoga does not mean twisting your body or tying yourself up into knots or holding your breath or something like this. See, what you call as myself right now is only four fundamental realities – your body, your mind, your emotion and the energies which make these things happen. So for these four fundamental aspects we have four basic yogas. This is known as Gnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga and Kriya Yoga. Gnana means yoga of intelligence, Bhakti means yoga of emotion or devotion, Karma means yoga of action, Kriya means yoga of transforming your energies. Is there anybody here who is not doing these yogas? All of you are doing it. To what extent is the only question, isn't it? So now we are talking about approaching these four activities which you are anyway performing with better understanding in a more systematic way so that it heals the necessary result. So can there be realization without yoga? No.


This is stock number two zero T for a we are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin You're new and used RAM and light-duty truck headquarters today. We are checking out this super clean 2017 RAM 1500 crew cab six-foot four inch short box This truck has the five point seven liter v8 hemi motor It has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change All the fluids have been checked and topped off the truck has been gone through mechanically 100% and Is 100% ready to go? True blue metallic is the color. We shoot all of our videos in 1080p 60 frames per second So if you have HD capabilities on your computer Tablet or smartphone device turn them on right now because it's definitely your best way to ensure the quality and Condition of the vehicle before seeing it in person And if you want to check out all the photos on this truck in the upper right hand part of your screen Is a link right to our website click that and check us out there comes with the 20-inch factory alloy rims with the chrome covers Cooper discoverer 275 60 r20 tires with right around half the tread left on them Front fenders in nice shape. I didn't see any dents or dings on that Headlight lenses are nice and clear Front bumper is in nice shape as well. No dents or dings on there, and it does have the front bumper parking sensors Chrome trimmed grille part of the big horn package Passengers side fender is in excellent shape as well And the passengers side rim no scuffs or scrapes on there As you go down this side the truck take note of how clean the body is how reflective and mirror like that paint is We take these HD videos So if you are far away or even if you're close by and just cannot make a trip down But you're still interested in purchasing the vehicle you can see the vehicle Hear the vehicle and of confidence in what you're looking at before you even get here So then when you do get here, there's absolutely no surprises Cabs in excellent shape and that's why we offer the summit auto fast-pass option in the upper right hand part of your screen a link Right to our website where you can apply for financing Get pre-approved see a payment quote even appraise the trade off from the comfort of your own home So when you get here all you got to do is drive the truck love it You'll be all set to go frame and underbody is in really nice shape Has all the remaining factory exhaust and for full disclosure this back rim is in excellent shape as well No scuffs or scrapes and the back tires have just as much tread as the front tires You also get the plastic wheel well liners which keeps your frame and underbody looking as clean as this one does As we come around to the back of the vehicle the rear bumper is in really nice shape Has a full towing package which includes a receiver hitch four pin and seven pin wiring the dual rear exhaust The tailgate is a nice condition as well It does have a locking tailgate and a backup camera And it has a very nice drop-in bed liner The only thing I saw is little ding on the rear of the box there, but nothing too bad. It is a used truck And down this side just as clean as a passenger side that box is a nice shape and for full disclosure This back room is a nice condition as well Down the rest of this side No dents or dings on the doors.  There are no tears on the seats power driver seat with lumbar and factory floor mats throughout Auto headlamps you got audio controls on the back of the steering wheel And as we hop inside the truck here, you can see that this one has 64,251 miles you get these seven in seven inch LCD display digital speedometer outside temp and compass display as well You can change those corners to read whatever you want And yes, we will be putting some fuel in this truck right after this video Has the heated leather wrap steering wheel cruise controls and gear selector on the right Blue tooth and information center controls on the left audio controls on the back of the steering wheel This one has the 8.4 3c radio AM FMN series XM radio capabilities This is also where your backup camera is going to show up and those grid lines are dynamic meaning that they're going to turn as you turn the steering wheel and You can do your heated seats heated steering wheel controls right there It also can do your climate controls here. It does have the dual climate control And the nice part about this radio is if you wanted to add navigation to it You could for $595 and we can do it right here at the dealership see your sales professional for more details If you don't like doing the climate control and radios controls on the radio You got the tactile buttons down here including a volume and a tune button You also have the eight speed automatic transmission push button four-wheel drive including auto You also have your factory brake controller heated seats and heated steering wheel buttons down here You have stability control tow haul in your front and rear parking sensors. You can turn those off and on Does have a 115 volt 150 watt plug-in passenger side seat and floor mat are in excellent condition as well and the headliner is in really nice shape I didn't see any rips or tears on that Smells very clean inside this truck I don't think it's ever been smoked in has the map lights power slide rear window and your home link buttons for your garage door security systems and lighting systems Lastly, it has 911 and assist in the rear of a mirror Those are features of the vehicle that you never have to pay a subscription for We'll take a quick look at the back seats and then we'll check out under the hood Back seats are just as clean as the front seats no rips or tears back here It does have the latch child safety system for all your child car seat needs power sliding rear window with the built-in rear defrost Seats are an excellent shape back here. You do get storage underneath here with a load floor You can put that down on both sides and if you got pets They got a nice flat-play slay or if you got muddy boots or tools put them on there You're not going to get your seats all dirty. Also if you're a hunter you got both sides down You can put your shotguns are not going to flop around on the hump there Storage underneath the seats you also get storage in the floor With two removable bins for easy cleaning but ice and drinks in there It's like you have too many coolers wherever you go and it does come with a factory floor mat back here as well Child safety locks on the back doors bottom of the doors and cab all look really good And we'll take a quick look under the hood I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today and hopefully from this HD video You'll have been able to tell just how clean this truck is all the way around inside and out Under the hood we have the 5.7 liter v8 Hemi motor engine base very clean runs very smooth This truck has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop as a fresh oil and filter change all the fluids have been checked And topped off the truck has been gone through mechanically 100% and is 100% ready to go See more pictures of this truck or one of our other 450 new and used cars trucks SUVs minivans wranglers half tons three quarter tons one tons you name it We got to go to our website Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at summit auto comm and if you'd like to check out more HD Videos you can go to youtube comm slash summit auto remember to like subscribe and share on this video and all the videos that you see there In fact in a second you will see link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left It links more ram 1500 truck videos like this one on your right if you haven't been to our website on the bottom link to this Vehicle on our website click those check us out and we really look forward to helping with this super clean 2017 ram 1500 crew cab six foot four inch short box bighorn in true blue metallic. Thanks again


Okay, Mr. Senate Judiciary, thank you all for being back here and we're taking up 8.4.28 and act relating to hate-motivate crimes and misconduct, and our two witnesses this morning are Falco Shilling, Advocacy Director ACLU Vermont, and Arizona Davis Executive Director of Racial Equity and Chair of the Governor's Task Force on Racial Equity, the A&J administration. So Falco, if you would mind taking up your views on H.4.28. So for the record, my name is Falco Shilling. I'm the Advocacy Director for the ACLU of Vermont, and we greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify to all on this bill today. I should start off by saying that the ACLU, both here in Vermont and nationally, does support the passage of enhancements for hate-motivated crimes with the caveat that those pieces of legislation should be narrowly tailored in order to protect constitutional rights of free association speech and beliefs. So with that said, I think you all saw that we submitted a proposed amendment to the legislation that should be, I think it's posted on the committee page. And the major change that we were we are asking for is to change this from a motivation-based enhancement to a victim selection-based enhancement. And I believe you heard a little bit about this from the Attorney General's office and the Defender General's talking about the difference between the two. So the language that we're proposing would require that the person who has committed the crime before they are, given the enhancement, be shown to have intentionally selected the victim on the basis of their protected category. So the reason that we support this type of language is we feel that it draws the balance between both trying to protect people from bias-motivated crimes, and as well as protecting constitutionally protected free speech thought and association. This is more this more closely tracks the legislation that you heard about in the case Wisconsin v Mitchell. So that was a case that the Supreme Court found that their statute was in fact constitutional. And was a case where the ACLU was acting an amicus in favor of this type of legislation. This is not something that is of course a balancing test within our organization because there's a lot of things you need to consider. I mean, not just the protected activities and associations, but as you've probably heard from me in the past, we're not generally supportive of increasing prison sentences or enhancing penalties. But this is an exception to that general rule because we know that these crimes have such a debit stating impact on society. If I could just stop you for one sec. Peggy, I'm looking around on the website and I can't find the document Falco. Do you do happy to resubmit it if that's if that's helpful. When did you give this to me a couple days ago. A couple days ago. Okay, so if you go under the bill. Yeah, it would be there. It wasn't. I pick up all drafts by Bryn here. Unless the witness documents. With under witness or other documents. Let me find it. I'll tell you guys. Okay. Also send it to you again, right now. That's just a list of witnesses. Yeah, I don't, I don't see it under any of those tabs. I will send that again, right now. I, I asked because it sounds like a substantial change. So it would be a substantial change and I do recognize it. Just to be honest, this was, we presented this to the House committee and they, as you will see, did not decide to make that change. Okay. If you go to witness documents, it's right there. If you go to bill and then I went to bill, but I don't see witness documents. I see witness or other documents. Oh, yeah. Okay. Mindset witness documents and it's right there. How do you have a different website than us? Because, because I'm special. I was going to say, is it under committee activity. Also, I think just to the committee members and to. Just sent it to our email. Yes. Thank you. Oh Lord. I don't know. Thank you. I've just got it. In my email. Okay. First, no commits causes to be committed or attempts to commit any crime and intentionally selects the victim on the basis of their actual received race. So Falco, I have a question about that. If. If. So you, you'll see in the latest draft from Bryn. We were looking at language that said. Motivated in whole or in part. And this one seems to have no in part. Counter part. It's, it says that someone intentionally selects. The victim. Which seems like where we were before, which is that they maliciously do something. And it's solely because of or predominantly because of. And this draft is attempting to move away from that into a. A different. Stand here that might be met in more cases. So how would you think about that? So I think your analysis is correct that this is a more narrow standard. It's a more narrow standard. It's a more narrow standard. It's a more narrow standard. What we are proposing the intentionally select standards. It doesn't have the in whole or in part. Or the motivate. As you heard from the general general's office. That these are kind of the two ways these types of statutes have been structured. Across the nation, but it's the position of the ACLU that when drafting these types of legislation, it should be an intentionally select standard. So we would be, you know, we, I don't know if we would be able to do that either. But we are saying that if you, you know, it is the ACLU's position that if you're passing this type of legislation that we think to strike the right constitutional balance that intentionally selects would be the correct language. Can I, can I just ask one. Philosophical question about that stance from the ACLU. So the problem. As I see it that produced this draft is that existing language was not workable. It was not workable. There were a number of high profile cases where it couldn't be invoked because the standard set was so high. So I understand what you're saying that you're, you're airing on the side of protecting the civil liberties of the person accused. But how do you square that circle with. The idea that people are. In some cases running rampant with speech. Or hate motivated incidents. And the argument would be, and for that reason, we need to move to a standard that, that is more workable in more situations. The criticism I think of the ACLU position might be that it's, it's a little inflexible in light of. Where we've been in terms of these cases. And how would you answer that? Well, I guess one thing I would say is that speech that we find distasteful and awful and abhorrent is still constitutionally protected. And that is one of the things that we are looking at and trying to strike this balance as we're. One of the reasons that we are, we are saying that it should be an intentionally select standards because a lower standard could cause a court to engage in an inquiry into the crime itself. And that would lead to a constitutionally protected activities such as that, that could lead to show that there is a presence of hate that someone might be a hateful person, but would then be going into their constantly constitutionally protected speech and association, which are not directly related to the crime itself. So that is where we try and draw that balance is that, that the information of these constitutionally protected speech and association that we find in the crime itself. And that is that person's intentional selection of a victim based on those protected characteristics, which should trigger this type of enhanced penalty. Because as the ACLU, we also, as I said before, don't take the idea of enhanced penalties lightly. We know that increased prison sentences is one of the largest drivers of mass incarceration in this country. That balance with the fact that these are not crimes that are committed by the ACLU, and that we think it would in fact drive mass incarceration, but that's another balance. We have to take into effect that further criminalization and further punitive penalization of activities, as you've heard, doesn't have the deterrent effect that we might want it to have. But that by trying to, so I fully acknowledge that I see where this bill is trying to go. Then that is not in line with our proposal, but we were asked to submit where the ACLU stands on this, and we'll just sit there and talk, and then we'll go back and have a little chat, and then we'll go back to the commission. And then we'll have a little conversation. And we'll have a little conversation and want to share our thoughts with the committee. Thank you. Appreciate that. I just. Comment that, you know, what we've seen nationwide and. Some extent in Vermont. Is where. The hate crime, or the hate, the actual acts. Yeah. Not only terrorizes that individual who's having. So in many cases, terrorizes communities.  Maybe that one person who's assaulted, you feel really bad for that person. But what about all the other folks who are in that community who are also terrorized just based upon their race, ethnicity, whatever, gender identity, blah, blah, blah. Those are also terrorized. I think that's one of the considerations we also have to have here. And I think, I mean, I would agree that as a consideration, we have to take into account in that scenario where someone is intentionally selecting someone and committing a crime against that person because of their protected identity. That is a situation we do think it's completely appropriate for this enhancement to apply. So I think that's where we've tried to draw the balance. Another issue that I do want to just raise quickly is the fact that sometimes these types of laws, though with the best intentions can be used to target people who might already be disenfranchised or disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system. So that is why we would support having some sort of tracking. If this bill moves forward, tracking how often these types of enhancements are used here in Vermont in particular, whether that's done in this piece of legislation or in another piece of legislation you're considering such as 317 or S108. We do think it's important to be able to track that and make sure that when we are creating new enhancements or new crimes that they're not disproportionately impacting in particular people of color and others who have already been disproportionately impacted by our criminal legal system. Okay. Other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Zana Davis, thank you for being with us again today and appreciate it. Your thoughts on H428 would be appreciated by the committee. Thank you. I wanna see if everyone, Zana Davis Racial Equity Director for the state. I don't have a whole lot to add actually. I think that Falka did a great job of summarizing some of the benefits and the pitfall of what we could potentially see with the proposed legislation. In the house, I did testify in support of the bill as it was introduced. The Racial Equity Task Force this past January did issue a report to the governor recommending that the state reduce the malicious motivation standard precisely for this reason and precisely as a way to combat a lot of the hate-motivated incidents that happened in the state, particularly because a lot of them do center on issues of speech and other constitutive conduct. So one of the things that we were explicitly asked to look at by the governor was how the state can strengthen its laws to protect members of historically marginalized communities or often targeted communities. For that reason, the task force did make a recommendation to reduce that standard, taking into account the testimony that had been given by numerous other entities, including the Defender General's Office, the ACLU, the HRC and others, and taking into account the proposed amendment by the ACLU. I would say that I would support the bill either in its current form or perhaps especially with the proposed amendment because it does, again, allow us not only to address the... Sorry, I saw you all look up. I didn't freeze. I was looking for the word. It does allow us to address conduct more adeptly than we have been, but also ensures that we don't overstep on constitutionally protected behavior. I am somebody who tends to favor less government intervention and less criminalization of things. And so with racial equity work, I find that it's a strange balance between how do we offer more protections for people who are being repeatedly and egregiously victimized without also trampling on civil liberties? It's a difficult balance. And I think that the proposed amendment could help us to strike it better. I see the senator has a question. Mr. Chair. Yes, Senator Burr. Suzanne, I just wanna make clear which amendment you're referring to. When you say the proposed amendment, do you mean the one that Bryn redrafted for us or the one proposed by Falco Schilling in the ACLU? Oh, I apologize. I meant the one that was proposed by ACLU. Okay, well, that surprises me because it's one of the functions of the bill, as I saw it, was to create a more workable standard to allow us to successfully prosecute more hate crimes. As I see it, the ACLU amendment would keep us at a standard that would be equivalent to the one we have now in terms of how difficult it is to meet. So that wouldn't get us anywhere, I don't think in terms of additional prosecutions or the possibility of additional prosecutions. So you believe the constitutional issues are strong enough to stay at the standard we're at. I am always hesitant to come close to confront the constitutional right. So I always hesitate in those circumstances. And again, I think even without the ACLU's amendment, I would and I think the task force especially would support the bill. It's certainly a goal for us to be able to prosecute more hate crimes. Say in fact hate crimes and yeah, that is certainly a goal. And then another goal that unfortunately sometimes feels like a competing goal is just making sure that we're not overreaching and coming too close to those constitutional issues. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I do think that the options currently on the table would both help us get a little bit closer to that. Okay, thank you. Senator White. Thanks, Susanna. I really appreciate that. I actually do like the ACLU amendment because I think it specifically points out that the person is selected for the crime because of whatever the characteristic is and that actually seems to me to be easier to prosecute than just being able to say it was partially motivated by hate. So I appreciate you're weighing in on that. Thank you. You know, I suppose another issue here is I respect this conversation because it's an important one and yet it's one of many that we have to be happy around this, right? Enhancing having a hate crimes enhancement or enhancing our hate crimes enhancement is not necessarily going to curb racist behavior, right?   Not to equate those things, just saying. But when we're talking about increasing penalties for criminal activity, when there's an underlying unlawful conduct, yes, we could make it easier to say you've selected a victim or you were motivated by the victim's identity or membership in a protected category and therefore the punishment is going to be worse for you. But that's not really getting at the actual motivations, the social and political issues that lead people to do these things in the first place. And so I think this conversation is extremely necessary and worthwhile. And I just caution us to remind ourselves that we're not gonna do all of the work through hate crime enhancement. This is one of the many things that we're gonna have to do. So it's gonna take a lot more. It's gonna take some updates to the way that we police and investigate things. It's gonna take updates to the way that we teach people. What are we doing in schools to make it so that young people don't end up being flooded with hateful ideology and surrounded with that messaging which later leads to certain criminality, et cetera. So I think this is one of many factors and I don't necessarily want us to go too far in one sector thinking that we'll solve the whole problem because it's a multi-faceted problem. I don't know if that comment helps or if it's more confusing. It is helpful to me. It is. I'm just under Baruch. Go ahead. I was just gonna say that I don't think any version of any bill solves all of the problems. But I'm mindful of the Kaia Morris situation where the community in general, the state in general, I think the nation in general was outraged at the behavior that was allowable under the law. And there were reviews, several reviews by the Attorney General and others to try to determine there was latitude in the law and it was declared that there wasn't. And I think that's the worst possible scenario is that our legal system investigates the law and says, no, nothing can be done about this. That sends the message that go ahead and do this because there's nothing that can be done. I have had people write me on another issue that people are passionate about. I've had them write me letters that were extremely insulting and then cite the case law to me about why they can do that. And that I have no recourse for them calling me these names. So, when I saw this bill originally, I thought I was delighted that it was gonna go to a less exacting standard because trying to prove that somebody is entirely motivated or that trying to prove intention, you'd need to prove, it would be very difficult to prove that somebody intentionally targeted someone for their race in in total, it's easier to think about doing it in part where you have some evidence that they had an anger toward this group and then you have their crime. That seems to me to be enough. But I take your points. I would just note that as Falco said, they presented those in the house and they were not persuasive there. And I think that's because they were trying to strike a new balance. But I hear you in terms of your comfort zone and wanting not to reach too far. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator White, do you have a question? No, I was just going to ask that our intention is not to vote this out today, right? I would like to make sure Joe is part of this conversation. Oh yeah, no, my intention is to next Wednesday. Oh, okay. But I was going to ask the question is about the word intentionally selects. That seems to be what we're talking about. That seems like we've meditated. Yeah, how do we, let's take the Asian-American woman who was assaulted and I can't remember what state she was in, she was in her sixties, I believe. How do one prove that that was an intentional act of selecting that Asian-American woman? So for the, sorry. Yeah, go ahead. So for the record, Bryn here for legislative council. And yes, the way I read that amendment language from the ACLU is to include an additional element of intentional selection of the victim. So I do think that would be a change from the current standard of motivated by. So is your question, I think it's an element that the prosecutor would have to prove that that person intentionally selected their victim based on their protected category. And under our draft 2.1, that wouldn't be necessary to prove they intended intentionally selected that. I think that the motivated by a standard is I think a little less exacting than the intentional selection standard, yes. So Bryn, are you saying then that the ACLU's language would actually make it harder than current law to prosecute? Yes, I think so. I haven't done any significant research since I have just looked at it this morning, but I think that it would be a more exacting standard and it would be more difficult to successfully have an enhanced penalty with that intentional selection language. I believe so, yes. Thanks. Rebecca Turner wanted to comment, but really our witnesses really is on a date but I'm happy to let you, thank you. Thank you, thank you, Senator Sears. I'm sorry, I can wait to later. No, I didn't, I just wanted to make sure that Zana had anything she wanted to comment on. No, I mean, I would just, I'm pretty much done and I would reiterate, I think the example that Senator Baruth gave about that particular case and how egregiously unjust it seemed to people around the country, the result of that and the fact that- No, I just wanted to make sure- I think we have so many cases like those that never make headlines, that end up having equally unjust and sometimes life-threatening results is exactly why I think the bill was proposed in the first place. And then I guess I just would reiterate that again, the task force, the racial equity office would support the bill in either of its versions here because a goal for our group is enhancing protections for people who are victimized by hate crimes. So I think either way that you move forward will probably be good in the sense that we will have amended the malicious motivation standard. And I guess the question is, how far are we dropping or how much more are we enabling ourselves to be able to handle these cases? But I would, again, I think if we were to go with the draft without having to prove intentionality that we would also be positioning ourselves for that enhanced protection for people. So that's it, that's all I got. Thank you. Rebecca, did you wanna comment and then Julio? Thank you, Senator Sears. Rebecca Turner, Head of the Appellate Division, Office of the Defender General for the record. I, listening to the testimony and the back and forth this morning, I just wanted to point out about being careful of our use of language. I understand that it's been characterized that not the ACLU's version, but that the version that is presented this morning and from the house, it's been described as establishing a less exacting standard in terms of an element. It's been described as making prosecutions of hate crimes easier. I wanna make sure the committee understands the ability to prosecute crimes is a separate question. And that remains the same, regardless of the changes proposed here this morning, either from the ACLU or the latest draft. So I just wanna make sure that's understood. It is not going to make prosecutions of crimes easier. What is proposed here is to make the imposition of sentences to imprisonment, longer sentences to imprisonment easier. So then the question is if the motivation is to protect, communities who have been traditionally marginalized to avoid future crimes as the ACLU witness, Felco Shilin testified, we know that length theory sentences not only just drives the mass incarceration problem nationally, but also does not deter. Therefore, if it doesn't deter future hate crimes, oh, I've lost it, can you see me or hear me? We can see you. We can hear you clearly and see you. Oh, good, good, good. My computer then is, I can't see you. Oh, here you go. That that is not in terms of the purpose being served by making this easier, it's about easier to impose a longer sentence to imprisonment. So it doesn't go to the question of can you more easily prosecute crimes because the crimes remain unchanged and the elements that have to be proven by the prosecution remains unchanged. Just wanna make sure that's clear, thank you. I think it is, but thank you for the reminder. Julio. Yeah, thank you, Senator. I think I wanna add, I'm trying to get my video again to work today. I think this Friday that our video and our computer equipment just gets tired and needs a break and... Gremlins. We've had more trouble with technical problems today. So I just think it's that all the equipment has had enough for the week and they're ready to go. So good morning, Julio Thompson, Attorney General's Office Director, Civil Rights Unit, our civil rights unit enforces the civil provisions of the hate crimes law which is implicated by this bill and hasn't been discussed. I'd like to talk about that a little bit as well as I teach the hate crimes class for the Vermont Police Academy. So every law enforcement officer who's become certified in the last 10 years has gone through the class that I teach along with the U.S. Attorney's Office and Amy Farr, our victim's advocate. There are a number of misconceptions here. I think I think that we need to clear up. Some of them I think have already been mentioned by Senator Brewer. So I apologize for repeating them. But one is that this notion that there's something spurious or problematic about government laws sanctioning people based on their motivation. I think if we think about Title VII and the Civil Rights Act, one of our most celebrated civil rights laws, that is based upon language that we're looking to add to this hate crimes bill, which is that you can't discriminate it against somebody because of their sex. It is necessary under our longstanding civil rights laws to show intentionality, intentional discrimination. And it doesn't have to be limited to selecting victims in the workplace to discriminate it against. It can be somebody who is even acting out of goodwill, but maybe in some misguided notion that let's say historically that women don't belong in dangerous applications. They don't have to be malicious. You don't have to target women as victims. If you just have this bias and you act upon the bias, it's prescribed by the Civil Rights Act. Think about equal protection under the Constitution. In order to show a violation of a constitutional right for racial profiling, you have to show intentional bias by the officer. It's not an accident if it's negligent. It doesn't violate the Constitution. But longstanding precedent looks at, if it looks at motivation as part of the element of the offense. Here, the hate crimes law as it exists doesn't go that far. You don't have to prove hate motivation for the underlying conviction as Rebecca just said from the Defender General's office. So where this the sentence enhancement only comes into play after the conduct and question has been established as a crime. The Supreme Court has in one case that addressed the constitutionality of hate crime statutes, Wisconsin versus Metro. There's no constitutional expressive interest in committing crimes. So it has to do with the penalty that's applied. There's no question that a victim selection statute is narrower than existing law because it doesn't take into account a category of hate crime offenders that's been recognized in the literature and in cases that have been prosecuted in the country, which is called the reactive offender where there is some underlying conflict and the identity of the one party, the victim in the crime, in the conflict is of a particular race or religion. And then that escalates the criminal defendants behavior. It is true there are categories of cases where bad people will look for victims and the current law covers that. But there are also cases where people will commit crimes against someone because of several reasons. It could be something for example, where patrons are in a bar and a bouncer or a security guard tells someone not to be unruly and then the person turns around and sees that part, that bartender, that bouncer or security guard is an African American and that person may feel like particularly agree that a person of that race is telling them what to do and then it escalates. I doubt very much, it would be harder for a prosecutor to show that that was a victim selection case rather than a case where someone was motivated to violence in part because of the underlying conflict with the guard but escalated by the fact that the crime victim's race was a factor. So it's troubling to us that a bill that came from a committee to include greater protections of marginalized communities would end up being narrower narrower than the law that we have. The other implication is it's not just sentencing because this definition of hate crime carries over to the civil statutes that cover hate crimes. So if someone is injured as a result of a hate crime, the Vermont law currently gives them the right to go to civil court, even if there's no prosecution and obtain remedies for those damages, including economic losses if a person loses their job, they have to relocate, they suffer physical injuries and the like. And so what a consequence of narrowing the definition of hate crimes isn't just about whether you're putting people in jail, it's also about reducing the range of remedies for victims of crimes. It also narrows our ability in the office to get an injunction to keep a perpetrator away from the victim. So this definition plays into both the criminal side as well as the civil side. So from our viewpoint, the ACLU amendment is a walk back. I think it is, it's narrower. Mix motivation statutes have upheld constitutional challenges for a long time. California has had a mixed motive hate crime statute since 2004. There's an ACLU in California, trust me. And for nearly 20 years, that statute has upheld as have other state statutes that recognize mixed motives been upheld because principally, there's no constitutional interest in committing a crime.  That is indeed one of the reasons the US Supreme Court said that it's rational to have an enhanced penalty. Another one is that hate crimes can create conflict in the community, can create an environment where there's retaliation or a vigilantism in response to it, and that that warrants higher attention. The Vermont Supreme Court has encountered challenges from the defender general's office and from other defendants to the existing hate crimes statute. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to find that it's unconstitutional. This law has been around for a long time and the Supreme Court has had multiple opportunities to find that it's unconstitutional and hasn't done so. In the most recent case that I was involved and at least I briefed, it was a 2010 case in which there was a challenge to a hate crimes injunction. That was a civil injunction to keep the defendant away from the victim and his family who in a prior case, the Supreme Court said had undergone a campaign of terror. The Supreme Court said in this case which is called shaheen versus madden.  And here again, we find no fatal infirmity with the statutory structure on the grounds appellant set forth. In that particular case, they were questioning whether you could have a civil remedy for a hate crime using the preponderance of the evidence standard rather than reasonable doubt standard. Whenever there's a challenge to the constitutionality of a state law, the Supreme Court notifies our office and then we have the opportunity to defend the legislation that the state has passed. And so we submitted a brief to spending the constitutionality of this law and the Supreme Court declined to find that it was that there was any problem. So this, I don't think this is really uncertain untread territory, but so I, and I think that the reality in cases that we encounter whose people report hate crimes to us is that the motives for conflict are often multiple. But where there's a bias element and that's a substantial motivating factor to show that it was you were acting particularly maliciously, which is a higher standard that you were somehow picking out somebody that there was some, it sort of implies that there was a plan rather than acting in the moment, which is what many crimes, especially crimes of violence occur. Thank you very much, Julio. I appreciate it. Next Wednesday, we're gonna come back to this and do Mark up on the bill. I think obviously looking at both the draft 2.1 that's on our website, the print drafted as well as the ACLU draft and obviously the original bill. And I appreciate your testimony. It cleared a lot for me up. And unfortunately, we have a toll from toll free call. I bet that's a robo call. If the house would get off there, Duff and pass the robo call bill, it might help me. I think Duff is a proper word. Duff is fine. I was about to use something else, but... We know. All right. Thank you, Bryn and Julio and Uzana and Rebecca. Thank you for being here. I'll go for being here.