So it's a great privilege now to introduce Chancellor Banks. Thank you, Lucius. Good afternoon, everyone. And thank you for sharing your story, Michaela, and all the young people who just demonstrated their talent, their brilliance, their confidence. I'm always amazed when I see young people who are able to stand up in front of a crowd like this and perform. It is not easy. And the ones who seem to have the most confidence are the smallest ones that you see, right? Aren't they amazing? Give them another big, big, big round of applause. They were fantastic. We think about the stories of all the important Asian Americans who helped to build our nation, but whose names may still be missing from the history books. That's what Michaela was talking about. And can we have another round of applause for the teachers and all of those who helped to make this happen working with their young people every single day? Their principals, their teachers, their art teachers, their music teachers, thank you so much. Your pieces remind us that music, dance, and the spoken word do not just spark our imaginations, but they build bridges between cultures. We're thrilled to have Mayor Adams with us here today, and you'll hear from him shortly. And a warm welcome also to Senator John Lu and the other elected officials who are joining us today. Thank you so much for being here. And to everyone that's joining us here at Tweed today, this is truly a great day for our students, our families, our educators. When I came down here just a mile around before the program started and somebody whispered to me, you know, this is a really historic moment. We've never had this kind of gathering at Tweed. And I'm thrilled to be here as your chancellor as we begin to just usher in a new era in this place and a strong message that we have for all of our students and for New York City. Now that quote by JFK to McKellar shared that history is not something dead and over. It is always alive, always growing, always unfinished. It goes to the heart of what we're doing here today. This sentiment is especially relevant today as we gather to celebrate the contributions of our Asian American and Pacific Islander students and families whose voices and stories have not been told for far too long. Well, that changes today. It's my pleasure to announce that our new hidden voices, Asian American and Pacific Islanders in the United States, a curriculum that honors all that our Asian American and Pacific Islander students and families contribute daily to our school communities and city. This, absolutely. Look at these beautiful, Mr. May, I don't know if you can see them or Senator, if you can see these young people, you'll see them when you come over here in just a moment. But they gave the biggest round of applause because they are the full on embodiment of everything that we're talking about here today. This new curriculum is a milestone in our ongoing support to AAPI students and families in our public schools and communities. And it's an integral part of our effort to lift the voices of all of our students. This curriculum will cover stories from numerous AAPI figures and a multitude of communities who have left their mark on this country. The lives of significant figures, such as Anadipa N. Joshay, the first woman of Indian ancestry to be a doctor of Western medicine. Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman elected to Congress. And Helen Zia, Chinese American journalist and activist for Asian American and LGBTQ rights. This is just to name a few. Stories about the 1763 Filipino settlement in present day Louisiana. The development of Bengali communities in Harlem at the turn of the 20th century, people don't know anything about this history. And the contributions of countless other AAPI communities and figures. We want each child to be heard and seen for who they are, to feel deep in their bones, that they are respected and important. And know that their teachers and school communities value their past and present experiences as well as their dreams for the future. With the new AAPI guide we're announcing today, our students will learn about and honor the many people often hidden from the traditional historical record who have shaped and continued to shape our history and identity. This marks the third phase of the Hidden Voices project and is a companion to the DOE's robust Passport to Social Studies curriculum. And this has been so well received by our teachers and students. Our initial AAPI guide will include riveting individual portraits in the vein of those Mikaela shared so students can learn about their history, culture and contributions of Asian American and Pacific Islanders in this nation. And understand that everyone's stories deserve to be heard. We'll also feature material to support teachers in integrating these resources within the themes and narratives taught in our classrooms. And I want to thank our teachers for embracing this important work. We'll be piloting this set of resources in social studies and literacy many units for all grade bands beginning in the fall. And after we receive teacher feedback, we'll launch a more fully developed curriculum in the fall of 2024. This curriculum truly is a step forward for all of our students as it will highlight the Asian American and Pacific Islander experience. It represents our ongoing commitment to the beauty and diversity of our school communities. This is especially important in light of the most recent and ongoing hate crimes and violence against members of our AAPI community, which we simply must not tolerate in our city or our schools. And one of the ways we combat racism and hate, and the mayor talks about this all the time, is by teaching and learning about each other's stories and histories. We are not the other. We are all New Yorkers. We are all Americans. By reexamining and renewing our understanding of American history, true American history, and by identifying and celebrating what we all have in common with each other, both as Americans and as New Yorkers. This curriculum is a continuation of the work that we've already done, including the LGBTQ plus curriculum, the Black Studies curriculum. And we're also currently working on the Middle Eastern North African curriculum, the Latin X history, and students affected through the American with Disabilities Act, a deeper understanding of Jewish culture and history. We are working on all of this. I wanna thank our Deputy Chancellor, Caroline Kintana and her team, who are doing this good work each and every day. And so before I close, I just wanna say a quick thank you to the many scholars and stakeholders who have put countless hours into developing these resources, which will benefit all of our students. Thank you again for supporting this important work. And now, it's my pleasure to pass this on to the great Mayor of the City of New York, Mayor Eric Adams. I've known John Liu, the Senator for many years. And I remember having him talk about these things. Just as we celebrated the presidency of Obama, although the country celebrated on a whole, African Americans had a special feeling about breaking down that barrier. And when I spoke with John Liu over and over again, and watched him push back on the stereotypes, on the hidden hate, on the violence, you know, we want to believe that what the AAPI community has gone through started the last few years. That is just not true. You had Chinese Americans that built the railroad system and was not allowed to ride on those same trains. We had men and women from different parts of the AAPI community that treat children were treated differently. I just wanted to just come up here with John and just tell him thank you, thank you. History, history has not been kind to the hidden voices. And I know sometimes we are overwhelmed by the various headlines of the day. And we lose sight over how far we're coming as a city. What we are doing, you're going to hear so often in this administration, the first time ever, the first time ever, the first time ever, that is what we're doing. We are looking at historic barriers and taking them down. First time ever dyslexia screening, the first time ever creating scholarship funds, the first time ever leaning into parents that need childcare, first time ever expanding on earned income tax credit that has not been expanded on 20 years. The first time ever having this hidden voice conversation. You're going to hear that over and over and over again because those of us who are biblical know this is a Matthew 21 and 12 moment. Jesus went into the temple and saw them doing wrong. He didn't stay there. He turned the table over. I became mayor to turn the table over. I didn't come mayor to sit in here and watch the same over actions happen. And we do it by what this chancellor says often. We listen. We listen. This agenda is not Eric Adams' agenda. This is not Chancellor Banks' agenda. This is the agenda from the people. We are listening to the people and enacting what the people are saying. And so the mission is clear. On so many fronts, the job is awesome. But there's not one day when I'm overwhelmed, not one. Because clarity of message and mission and leading with your heart and creating the right partnerships with people who have led with their heart and willing to put themselves in harm's way to make this city what it ought to be. This is the greatest time to be a New Yorker. The greatest time to be a mayor, a senator, a teacher, a school crossing guard, a police officer, a firefighter. This is our moment. This is our moment. And today we are saying this is the greatest time to be a student. Not only are these babies, these scholars, not only are they going to benefit, there's nothing more tragic than a Caribbean student sitting next to an AAPI student not knowing the rich history of that student. There's nothing more tragic than a child from Dominican Republic sitting next to a person from the continent of Africa and not know their history. It's tragic when our babies are academically smart and not emotionally intelligent and don't develop the full personhood of who they ought to be. That's tragic. That's not education. That's a robotic system that produces robot. We're not. We're producing scholars, leaders, emotionally intelligent, future leaders of this city and of this country. That's what this is doing today. We need to say thank you to John and the others that brought this forward because our children are just becoming smarter and wiser because of this moment. So we have a lot of work to do. But every time I go to a school building, the question mark of can we do it turn into an exclamation point of yes we can do it because I have never met a more dedicated and committed group of people who just love children. You just love children. And I know as I watched this brother here holding his baby behind us rocking up. I know all of you held your stomachs with what happened in Texas. I know that. I know all of you who are educators thought about those babies. I know that. And you have my promise and commitment. Keep the city safe because you can't educate if you're worrying about the safety of your babies and scholars. That's what this battle is about. That's why we're doing this. That is why we're moving this city forward. And so on behalf of New Yorkers, we wanna say thank you to the chancellor for taking this right step. We wanna thank you to all the members of the AAPI community who never gave up, never surrendered. You knew where you were on the right path. You accomplished a historical goal today. And that's my general thank you. But my personal thank you is to my friend, my fellow colleague, John Lu. Thank you, John. Say a few words. It's hard to follow what Mayor Adams has told us. This is a mayor who really understands communities, both from being a lifelong New Yorker and on the campaign trail for many years, really digging deep into all the communities that make New York. And he's absolutely right. This anti-Asian hate that we've seen so much of, it didn't just happen the last couple of years. It's been happening ever since the beginning of this country, ever since the first Asian Americans arrived at our shores. But there's no question that there has been a direct correlation between the current onslaught of anti-Asian hate and the COVID-19 crisis. They go hand in hand. Why is that? Because Asian Americans have been scapegoats for a lot of things over our entire history, whether it be economic recession, international warfare, global pandemic, we get blamed. And the reason we get blamed and therefore hated and attacked is because of ignorance. It's easy to blame people that you don't know or you don't understand. And there is still an ongoing lack of knowledge of what Asian Americans are. We're either model minorities or perpetual foreigners or worse yet, yellow peril. People don't know what the AAPI community is about. In fact, last year, nearly 3,000 American adults were surveyed. They were asked a simple question. Name an Asian American. And 42% of these nearly 3,000 American survey could not name a single Asian American. And of the remaining 58% who could name somebody, the most common answer was Jackie Chan. Yeah, I think Jackie Chan's a little goofy, but I like his movies. But he's from Hong Kong. He's not Asian American. And the second most common response was Bruce Lee. I am a Bruce Lee fan. Rest his soul. He's been dead for 30 years. People do not know the Asian American community and therefore it's so easy for people to blame us and then to hate us and then to attack us. And you see the viciousness by which some of those attacks were perpetrated. We've all seen the videos. That's why it's important to teach our young children, our future leaders and everybody in our state and by extension our nation, what the AAPI experience has been about so that we can really be seen as fellow Americans, fellow human beings even. We have a bill in the state legislature that would codify a mandate to teach AAPI history in every school in the state of New York. And I wanna thank many of the community leaders and activists here as well as students and teachers who have been part of pushing that legislative agenda. But it's not easy. You would think it should be a slam dunk. We have critics in Albany who say we're trying to be divisive by teaching this history. They marginalize it or demonize it as critical race theory. I wanna say very clearly that when I immigrated here, I'm not trying to divide anybody. I wanna be American. When I immigrated here at the age of five, I thought I was gonna be American. It wasn't long thereafter that I found out in the schools as well as in the streets that I was somehow different. I didn't stand up and say I wanna be different. Everybody else said I'm different. I'm Asian or whether you're a member of another racial minority, we are not the ones who saying that we are this or that. It's other people. The same people who marginalize our efforts as critical race theory, it's what they have done to us. So in order for us to overcome this difference that has been imposed on us, we need to teach our experience. We're still working on that state legislation, but Mayor Adams and Chancellor Banks, they're not waiting for us to their credit. They've seized upon the opportunity and the need at this point in history to teach AAPI history. They're rolling it out in our public school system. And they're rolling out in, I've seen some of the curriculum. It's terrific as far as I can see. And it's just a start. And one of the things that is so great about it is that they're not creating an Asian-American course or a special class in Asian-American history. No, that's not what we're talking about because what we need is Asian-American history and experience to be fully integrated into the curricula, into the syllabus that we are teaching, that we are teaching our young people so that it's not just Asian-American history, indeed, it's American history. That is the whole point of it. So I thank you, Mayor, for your insight and your initiative and just basic care for the AAPI community. Thank you, Chancellor Banks, for leading your team and making this a reality. I wanna thank my friend and former city council education committee chair, Mark Triger. Thank you, Mark, for your efforts as well as many of the community organizations here. I'm gonna forget some of them, but I wanna thank Make Us Visible, which is conducting a national campaign. I wanna thank the Organization of Chinese Americans, the Coalition for Asian-American Children and Families, the Asian-American Federation. I wanna thank my hero and my mentor, one of our regents in the New York State Board of Regents, Judith Chin. Judith, thank you so much. And finally, and also, I wanna acknowledge my city council members. I see we have Linda Lee, we have Sandra Ong. I know I saw Shaker Krishnan. Shaker, as in salt and pepper. Shaker Krishnan, don't get it wrong. And I think there are other members here, but they, when I started in the city council, there was only one AAPI member. Now there are five and a half AAPI members. You are strong caucus brothers and sisters. And lastly, I just wanna give a quick shout out to our brother here, Lucius Young, Chancellor Banks. Lucius was a, wow, they really like Lucius. He was a star principal in Flushing, PS163, where he championed, among many things, dual language programs. Thank you so much. I am just so happy today, but I know there's still work to be done, and we will do it together. Thank you. We're not finished with the program. Just one more moment. We got this new grade, that's right. We got this new grade, that's right. We have, we have members of our city council are offering up brief remarks. So without further ado, council member Linda Lee, would you please come? Council member Lee. All right. Hi, everyone. No, yeah, yeah. No, no, no. Trust me, I have an eight-year-old and a three-year-old, I get it. Hi, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Linda Lee from City Council District 23, all the way out in Eastern Queens. I just wanna say a special thank you to Chancellor Banks, as well as Mayor Adams, because I will say this much. It is an incredibly heartwarming thing to see you all be so open to listen to us and what our needs are in each of our districts and for taking the time to really have these open dialogues and conversations. So I just wanted to thank you so much for inviting us and having this event. As a public school parent, as a social worker, someone who led a nonprofit organization, many of the leaders who are here, as well as the chair of the mental health committee on the city council, I will say that I wanna, on behalf of all those things, I just wanna say a shout out to all the teachers, the administrators, the principals. I just wanna give you guys a round of applause for all the work you've been doing. The past few years have not been easy and we have a lot of work to do, especially on the city council side, around mental health and our schools. And thank you to Senator John Lu because you know what, it is so important to see faces like his in public service and in government and myself, as well as Julie Won, we are the first Korean-Americans ever elected to city council, which is crazy to think about. And as mentioned, there are six Asian-Americans for the very first time ever on city council and I think it is so important for students, our communities to see faces like ours in public service and in leadership. And one thing I learned in serving the community as a nonprofit organizer is that it is important to have that seat at the table, that voice at the table and we will continue to fight on behalf of our communities. And I just wanna thank everyone so much because this curriculum is going to teach our students at a very young age that they are not the others, that we're not a monolith and I have one of the second highest percentage of Asian-Americans in my district in Eastern Queens and we are so diverse and speak so many languages and this should be seen as a strength, not something that divides us. And so I look forward to working with each and every one of you to make sure that this is successful. So thank you. Thank you. And finally also from city council, council member, Shekha Krishna. Good afternoon everyone. Salam aleikum, namaste. My name is Shekha Krishnan. I'm the council member from Jackson Heights, Elmer's Queens. And I first wanna say, seeing students today dressed up, wearing a kurta, playing the harmonium, clothes that I wore, instruments that I played growing up but never brought into school. They didn't think, didn't feel comfortable bringing it to school to see them here today performing in front of the chancellor and all of you is so powerful. And that's why I give them a big round of applause. Thank you all so much. It was amazing. And to be here to witness it as the first Indian American ever elected to the city council in the history of New York City makes me especially proud. The truth is for over a century, our Asian American communities have been a critical piece of the fabric of our country and of our city. Raising our families here, contributing to the vibrancy and beauty and beautiful cultures of New York City and of the United States. But we haven't always been welcomed or celebrated. And in fact, that invisibilization, our absence from our school curriculum here in New York, our lack of representation up till this point in government, especially at the city level, and our overall invisibilization of our voices, of our communities in the decisions that government has been making about our communities, it's part of the reason why, it's part of what has fueled all of the hate that we are experiencing today. And so when we talk about culturally responsive education, this is what we are talking about. And so I want to thank Chancellor Banks, Mayor Adams, for being so committed to making sure the stories of our communities are told in our textbooks in our curriculum. Now, my children, South Asian boys can see themselves in the material they learn, can hear and listen to stories about their cultures in schools, and can have the opportunities that we didn't have growing up to see ourselves in our academic material and in our own education in our public schools. This is also a moment where we recommit to the work ahead of us too, in every respect, in our school system, whether it's studying the lives of Fred Korematsu, Vincent Chin, or as Chancellor Banks said, studying the story of Bengali Harlem, whether it's reading the works, the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore, or the books by Minjin Lee, or whether it's expanding dual language and bilingualism in our schools, especially in our Asian American languages. Two, in the more symbolically, but importantly significant way, especially as a South Asian, to seeing Diwali as a school holiday in our public school system here in New York City. To celebrate a holiday that we all celebrate in our South Asian communities, but could never celebrate as public school students. And of course, to continuing that work outside of education, to our larger society, to voting more resources and services for mental health issues, to ensure that mental health resources are in our languages, are in our cultures. That's the work that I know we're all committed to, especially my elected colleagues, whether in here in the DOE, or our elected colleagues in government, like State Senator John Lu, council member and mental health chair, Linda Lee, council member Sandra Ong, and all of our AAPI council members, part of this historic class of representation. Today is a day to reflect and to recommit to that work. And we're here to do that together. So thank you all so much, Daniela. I had one oversight, I'm so sorry. And before, because I know the kids are, they're really good when I think about sitting for so long. So, and I know you gotta get ready to go home, but two more minutes, please welcome council member Ong, please, our final council member. Good afternoon, I'm city council member Sandra Ong, representing District 20, the largest AAPI community of all the New York City council districts. I wanna first thank the educators and parents for the job you do, it's not easy. You kids are amazing. And you know what, I see some leaders. I see some future leaders right here in this room. I wanna thank Mayor Adams and Chancellor Banks for making a reality, including AAPI history in our New York City curriculum. Thank you for listening to the calls of the Asian-American community, the elected officials. And also I just wanna share this, this is actually a very personal moment for me. As someone who grew up in the New York City public schools, I remember going through the textbooks and going, where am I? It's really disheartening going through textbooks and looking for someone that looks like me and not seeing them there. So thank you for doing this today. And I look forward to all of you. And next step is getting sent to lose Bill Pass in the New York State Legislature so we can make this reality in the state. And of course, of getting it passed to Congresswoman Grace Meng's bill so we can make this reality nationwide. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you to everybody. And to all the students, they can get ready, I guess, if they're gonna start to move them out now. Now's the time. I think the press wanted to ask a few questions. I'm not sure if that's what you still wanted to do or not. But just know that it may be a noisy background as the students start to make their way as they got to start to make their way home. Congressperson Grace Meng was also very, very excited about this announcement. Couldn't join us today, but pledged her full support. So with that, I don't know you want me. Where's the council member? Is she here? Okay, I understand that the chair of the Education Committee at City Council, Rita Joseph is here somewhere. I just want to give her a big shout out. There she is. I didn't see you. Good to see you. Absolutely, thank you. Well, we don't direct the curriculum at charter schools, but this is across all the New York City public schools. But we certainly, any curricula that we develop is always open to charter schools or any other schools who are seeking to use it for sure. Picture it this way. Mosaic essentially is almost like an umbrella. And it has lots of different pieces that are under it and that are connected to it. Some of which had started prior to our administration coming in and there are other pieces that we're continuing to develop that might not have even originally been a part of the mosaic, but we see it all as part of the mosaic. It's a large fabric of culturally responsive education with varying curriculum. So our deputy chancellor, if she's here, could respond to that. But our goal is to roll this out across many schools. This September, but the full-on curriculum will happen as a result of the work that we do and what we learn throughout this particular school year. But the question is very specifically about how many schools for this September our deputy chancellor. Was a question, how many schools for this September will have a pilot? So we have to still make those decisions and we'll be working with different superintendencies and districts to make that decision in terms of what it looks like to pilot and what grades we'll pilot. But this is, it'll be integrated into the passport curriculum that as you know is already across our schools. And so it won't be very difficult to do that work. We just wanna make sure that we can check it out and have teachers give us feedback, have principals, some of whom are in the room, give us feedback so that we can build it out and have it ready for you by 2023. Hey, chancellor. So another aspect of representation is staff in the schools. And I was just looking at some of the numbers and only 7% of teachers are Asian compared to 17% of students. So I'm curious, will this come alongside any efforts to recruit more Asian staff members, teachers? How do you look at that? Yeah, I'm glad that you raised that. The question was really around, the teaching force is only, Asians only represent 7% of our teaching core. And we're certainly gonna be working in that way. This was kind of like the priority for us really kind of laying out the curriculum. But diversifying our teaching core is a critical component of the work that we're doing. There are a lot of things that we think that we have to do but get incredible messengers as well who can help us to get the word out about needing more teachers of Asian descent is critical. And it's not just Asian students but teachers but it's also Latinx teachers, more African-American teachers. We have to fully diversify our teaching force across New York City. That is a huge part of the work that we're working on. Absolutely. Yeah, but I don't think it had anything to do with Merrill accountability. I think the Asian community, particularly led by people like Senator Jarlou and others but has been on the forefront for this issue for quite some time. And I don't know that it has anything much to do. We certainly don't connect it to having anything to do with Merrill accountability. And well, in the sense of, yes, this is an administration that is built on listening. And I think you can speak to any members of the city council. You can talk to members across the state legislature and you can talk to community leaders and parents from the moment that we have gotten here. We have engaged, we have listened and we have done everything that we can to try to build a teaching and learning experience for all of our schools that is reflective of what our communities want. And so all the efforts that we've been doing have been because we have been listening. The dyslexia initiative that we rolled out, the gifted and talented expansion, all of the efforts that we've been making have been made as a result of us listening to our elected officials, to our community leaders, to our teachers, to our students. We're listening, that's what the mayor said, and that's what we're committed to doing. Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you, Chancellor. Thank you.


We're here with a project. My box isn't super full, but you know, I have been doing some cleaning and crafting. I have a bunch of things in here that need to go to donation, which of course we can't do right now. If you're watching this in the future, google the year 2020 and you'll figure it out. All the thrift shops are closed but I will be saving it for donation when they do open. I've been doing a lot of stitching and embroidery right now. Here's one of the pieces I've been working on and when I was cleaning out my supplies for that and rearranging things to make it a little easier to find things, I found I had a bunch of duplicate embroidery hoops. So I have all these extra embroidery hoops, some of which of course is still the tagline underneath. So they're going to go to donation. I have this round sewing tin with some vintage supplies in it that I'm not going to be using that is going to go to donation. Is that silk thread? No, I think it's cotton. Yeah. Anyway, extra buttons and all kinds of things. It's going to go away. Some extra threads and yarns that I'm not using, not going to use. Paint chips.  This represents something I used up now that I've forgotten what it is. I don't know. I don't remember. It might be a button, kind of a button. I don't know.  Now I don't remember what they were. It's been a long month, you guys.  I bought some new from a local shop that had a drive-by and pickup service. I also got sent some from a friend, my friend Leslie McGrath. Thank you, Leslie. So it hasn't been a huge month for using up supplies, but I was able to go through some things and purge some things that I no longer need that I will be passing along. And it's all good, right? So I'm continuing my process, which I will be all year, going through my stuff, using what I have, making sure what I have is what I really want and what I really love. Or if I'm not so sure about it and it's something I don't want to keep, either using it up completely and letting it go or just letting it go and donating it. So that's it. What do you have in your room that you aren't using and that you should take a second look at? Because if you're like me, there's something. You don't have to do it all at once. You can do like me and just do it gradually. And just take a second look at everything, see what's there. So that's it for this month. Short and quick, sweet, and to the point. Don't forget to check out the video description for any relevant links. This started out as a makeup hashtag. Project Pan was a use of your makeup hashtag. And I just have applied it to art supplies. I will link the playlist for the other videos down below. So you can see how I've been doing it all along. And this is a box that lives under my desk for those that are new. And as the month goes along, I dump more stuff in it or things I've used up. So that's it. Check out the video description for relevant links, ways to support the free content here on YouTube and over in the Facebook art groups, not only on my channel, but all your favorite creatives channels. And don't forget to like, share, and subscribe.  And I'll see you later. Bye, guys.


For those of you who have an audience already, maybe you have an email list, a few hundred people, a few thousand people, but your audience isn't buying from you as often as you'd like. This video is for you. So I have coached so many people like this over the years, and there are basically three things that if you work on it, your audience is much more likely to buy your products or your services. So, and by the way, the lighting is a little weird because of the hazy smoke today. I'm in California and wildfires and things like that. So, anyway, three principles. One is reach. Oftentimes, okay, so think about this month, what product or service would you like to sell more of this month? All right, got that in mind now. The second question for you is, has your audience seen your advertisement about that product or service at least once on average? Each person has seen it at least once, if not two or three times. Now, I don't believe in the typical rule of seven, there's a typical rule in advertising that people have to see something seven times before they decide to buy it. I haven't found that to be true. I think seven is too many. I think three is a good maximum because if they seen it three times and they're not buying, it's probably not the right fit for them right now and if you keep advertising into them, they get add fatigue, they get tired of it and you start to erode your relationship with the audience. So, up to three times, that's it. If it's really a good match, usually most of my students and customers, they buy it the first time that they see it from me. So, really, if it's a really good match, so reach is the first principle. Have you sent an email or run an Instagram ad or Facebook ad to make sure that your warm audience has seen the advertisement at least once, if not two or three times? Okay, that's reach. The second principle is match. Have you made sure that what you are selling is actually helping them to solve a problem that they want solved right now? And you discover that by having conversations with them and then by taking surveys of your audience, have conversations with a few, well, as many as you can, but at least three people, if not five or ten, to find out where are they really struggling in their life right now that your business can help to solve. Of course, they might be struggling with many things, but of the many things they're struggling with or the various things, what's one or two or three things that your business is really qualified to help them solve? Okay, because we're all in the business, one, of easing human suffering. We want to ease human suffering as much as possible. And secondly, once that human suffering has been eased, we want to help them self-actualize and transcend. So that's the second question is match. Are you selling something that is helping them ease the suffering right now? That's something, a problem they really want to be solved right now? The second question match. And the third question is trust. And this is a really big one. And I've helped a lot of people over the years with this one. Does your audience trust you? There's two questions here. Does your audience trust you on the topic that you're selling? So whatever thing you're selling, have they gotten enough helpful content from you on that topic? Because if they haven't, then they don't trust you to be able to provide a product or service that really helps them with that thing. You see, this is why I talk all the time about the importance of creating helpful, authentic, genuine content to just serve and help your audience, even if they never buy. And this brings us to the second question about trust, which is general credibility. Does your audience trust you as a person, as a business owner? Do they feel that you have their best interests at heart? Or do they feel that you're always trying to get them to do something? If you're always using calls to action, trying to get them to do this or to do that, to try to, when I say do to do that, I don't mean to follow some good advice to help them out, but to try to buy something from you or to sign up for something. If you're always trying to get them to sign up for something, even if it's a free thing or to buy, especially to buy something from you, then that relationship always feels like, oh, this person's always trying to get me to buy something from them, especially if the match isn't there. They're always trying to sell something that isn't the right match for me. But the way you market yourself will either build, earn their trust or to erode the trust. How do we earn trust? We earn trust by approaching our audience like we approach our friends. For example, one example, I see some people use the word free in all capital letters. Have you seen this? Come to my free webinar in all capital letters. It's just tacky. And would you send that to a friend? If you were trying to get a friend to do something with you, would you say, hey, Joe, this is free in all capital letters? I mean, probably maybe as a joke, but it's not, it feels manipulated. It feels aggressive. It feels tacky. Like if you don't do that to a friend, why would you do that to your audience? It's still things like this. That's like, well, no wonder they don't trust me because I treat them like I'm trying to treat some lemmings to be manipulated or something. No, it's like you treat them as friends. You treat them with generosity, without attachment, whether they ever buy from you, you're there to help them. That's what you do with a friend. Now, if a friend is bad to you forever, then you might break up. But usually friends have some kind of give and take. But usually you're a friend with someone because you like them genuinely. You actually want them to succeed.  And so you serve them out of joy without attachment. And that's what we do in content. And that's how you earn people's trust naturally. You don't try to build their trust by trying to manipulate trust, but you just earn their trust because you are trustworthy person because you come to it without attachment. Anyway, I hope this is helpful to you. I'm always open to your comments and your questions below. And I'm George Cal. For those of you who don't know, I'm George Cal. I love talking about this kind of stuff. How do we grow our business truly from the heart? Not just in word and but spiritual or heart base, but truly from the heart that really feels deeply enjoyable to us. So I hope this helps. And I'll see you in another video. Thanks for joining me.


We're going to give it a couple of seconds everyone for people to come in and then we're going to get started. Okay, so we're going to get started. I think people are going to trickle in, but that's okay. I'm going to start with the intro to our event. Welcome everyone. This is a new seminar in our criminal justice speaker series hosted by the criminal justice coalition at the truly school of law at the house university. I am Madeline I'm a criminal law professor here at the law school, and I'm going to be the host for today's event. Today we have with us, Mr. Pat McEwen, who is a trial lawyer here in in Halifax and a graduate of truly law. Is that true? True. Yes, there we go. I cannot emphasize that enough. And he is now practicing at McEwen McGygan and Giacomo Antonio. Mr. McEwen is going to take us into the world of undercover operations and into the challenges of defending somebody who has confessed to a crime during a Mr. Big Sting. Now you're going to get an overview of what those undercover operations are during during the talk. I will just note for those of you who don't know that until 2014 the confessions obtained through a Mr. Big undercover operations were automatically admitted at trial, because there was no regulation, no legislation regulating their admission at the time. Now in 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada created what we now call the heart framework, which basically says that the Mr. Big obtained confessions are considered generally inadmissible, unless the crown can prove that they are reliable and they haven't been obtained through abuse of process by the police. Now, since 2014, the heart framework has actually been used quite a bit. It has been used in over 60 cases. And a study that I've conducted with my former student Vanessa Kinnear shows that basically the confessions were admitted in the vast majority of cases. The confessions were excluded only in five cases. So the impact of heart was negligible in this area of law. However, the interesting thing is that in two out of the five cases in which the confessions were excluded and as a result the accused was acquitted. Mr. McEwen was the lawyer. So Mr. McEwen has quite a bit of experience with Mr. Big operations and defending the target. So we are very lucky to have him here with us tonight. Before I provide an introduction to Mr. McEwen, I just want to note that you have at the bottom of the screen, you have a Q&A box and I would like to invite you to use it to ask questions there and I can fill them and ask them to Mr. McEwen at the end of the talk. Now, that was called to the Nova Scotia in 2004. So again, after graduating from Shulik Law, his focus is on criminal defense, criminal code, control drugs and substances act and regulatory offenses. Beth has practiced all facets of criminal law and has been involved in a number of high profile cases in Nova Scotia, including numerous murder trials. He has also presented as a variety of criminal law conferences. He's a member of the Nova Scotia Criminal Lawyers Association and he has appeared in all levels of courts in Nova Scotia, as well as provincial courts in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. So with that, I am going to turn that to you Pat. Welcome and thank you so much again for being here. Thank you. Okay. So yes, as Alina has indicated, I am here to speak on the use of the Mr. Big undercover technique in criminal matters.  I have had an opportunity as she has mentioned to represent a number of individuals who have been the target of undercover investigations, and one in particular that I will speak about in some detail, who was subject to a lengthy Mr. Big operation. As Alina has outlined fairly clearly what a Mr. Big operation is, but despite that there seems to be some confusion with respect to the definition of what a Mr. Big is or what the Mr. Big technique is. And as we will discuss a little bit later on, the definition does matter. And as mentioned, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed these types of operations and it's 2014 decision and the Queen versus heart, it defined a Mr. Big operation as follows my and I will quote a Mr. Big operation begins with undercover opera officers luring their suspect into a fictitious criminal organization of their own making. In several weeks or months, the suspect is befriended by the undercover officers. He has shown that working with the organization provides a pathway to financial rewards and close friendships. There is only one catch the crime boss, known as Mr. Big, must approve the suspect's membership in the criminal organization. The operation culminates with an interview like meeting between the suspect and Mr. Big. In the interview Mr. Big brings up the crime police are investigating and questions the suspect about it denials of guilt or dismissed and Mr. Big presses the suspect for confession. As Mr. Big's questioning continues it becomes clear to the suspect that by confessing to the crime, the big prize acceptance into the organization awaits. But it does confess fiction soon unravels and the suspect is arrested and charged. So that's the definition of a Mr. Big operation which is at one beginning of the heart decision and that's a majority decision written by Justice Muldaver. And as a defense lawyer and operation of this nature does cause fairly significant amount of concern and create several challenges and in particular if your client indicates that they have confessed. To an offense they did not in fact commit. So as previously mentioned prior to the heart decision there was really very little as far as constraints on the police and how they were to operate in these undercover operations. It was designed in a such a way that it made it very very difficult to challenge the operation itself or the evidence that was obtained through the use of a Mr. Big investigation. Lawyers tried in many ways to object to the miscibility of evidence that was obtained through Mr. Big confessions and for the most part I think but for one, they were unsuccessful. The reason for that is that the standard ways in which lawyers were generally challenged these confessions or challenge confessions to police officers did not apply. So for instance the principle of voluntariness did not apply as the police officers were not objectively police officers they were posing as criminals and as such did not appear to be persons in authority. Therefore the confession rule did not apply with respect to challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The individuals were not detained by the police and as such were not entitled to be advised of the right to silence they are not entitled to be advised of their right against self-imprimination. So there was certainly a void with respect to a way in which to attack these operations. Therefore in 2014. There was very little to prevent the police from using these techniques or up to 2014 and for the most part they use them as often as they could because frankly they had quite a bit of success. There obviously are concerns anytime your client confesses to a crime, especially a very serious crime. There's even further concerns when your client confesses to a very serious crime to an undercover operator. On top of the obvious problem being that so there's a confession that you have to deal with in front of a jury and confessions are very powerful evidence. There is the issue is with respect to how the operation itself is conducted. So I do have a biased view of this, but as you've already heard this technique is often used only in the most serious offenses that are being investigated. Generally speaking, it's predominantly murders that are being investigated when this technique is used. When these techniques are being used it's often because not only is the suspect a suspect to the police, but they may very well be a suspect within the community. And, for instance, Mr. Hart, who is the applicant in the Supreme Court kind of decision was accused of murdering his three year old twin girls so obviously a very significant offense. And with respect to my former client Mr. Buckley who I'll talk about a little more further on in this in this talk, he was accused of murdering his own mother. These two individuals were not only suspects to the police but they were suspected by various members of the community which had the effect of isolating them socially not only from various friends and family, but from employers and so on and so forth within their community. And, as these individuals become more alienated this is a vulnerability that the police are able to successfully exploit. So, for instance, in both of the heart, Mr. Big Investigation and Mr. Buckley's investigation as well the police targeted both their loneliness. With respect to friends in the community and supports, as well as their financial vulnerabilities. The police are very well aware of who their targets are prior to the operation ever taking place. Oftentimes targets are subjected to surveillance for a period of time, profiles are prepared, and it's determined how best to approach these individuals. In the course of the investigation, targets often are introduced to various members of the criminal organization of course are police officers, and they are introduced to what's often referred to as a family close friends support structure that they do enjoy they are the camaraderie of being around these these other individuals. And this becomes very important. In addition, as I mentioned, most of these targets that I've researched were financially vulnerable with respect to Mr. Buckley the individual I represented the police approached him, while he was at the place of collecting his check they knew that he would be there on a specific date and provided him information on the job fair information was provided by an attractive young woman who they felt was an individual they would have some success with. And then, as time progresses, not just Mr. Buckley but many of these individuals they're introduced to a relatively lavish lifestyle they are shown. And eventually they're they're go to nice restaurants they stay in nice hotels they travel across the country. They're they're shown a lifestyle that, frankly, they would otherwise not have access to. So they're provided not only with a sense of camaraderie and community but they're provided with a sense of financial stability. As Alina had previously mentioned at once. These targets feel very comfortable. They're fully immersed in this organization so to speak. They're asked to confess to the crime that's being investigated. The way that approach is different in essentially every case but they're told that if they confess they continue to enjoy the high life, if not, they will be forgotten or worse. As most people can see the incentives for providing a confession, truthful or not, are quite high. And that's how they're designed. These types of incentives are exactly what the principle of voluntariness and a confession's role were created to prevent when individuals who are known to be police officers. If they were to provide these types of incentives for a confession. They wouldn't get very far but because these officers are posing as organized crime members, the same rules don't apply. If all of that is not enough to create some concerns surrounding the use of the Mr. Big technique. Think of this. Should your client wish to testify trial that they provided a false confession, they would be doing so in front of a jury. And they no doubt will have to answer questions about the surrounding circumstances involving their confession. And in doing so they would have to readily admit that not only were they prepared to enter into a criminal organization and commit various crimes at the behest of that criminal organization that they wish they would also have to testify that they wish to remain within that criminal organization so badly that they were prepared to confess to things they did not do in order to remain a member of a criminal organization. Obviously that paints your client in a fairly poor light as the investigation is unfolding oftentimes these individuals are asked to participate in what they believe are crimes, fake crimes or stage crimes. But what they believe are crimes in these instances would provide a ground prosecutor significant amount of ammunition for cross examination. So, once your client has testified that he wanted to be a member of a criminal organization and concedes that he committed various crimes in order to ingratiate himself with gangsters or organized criminals. It's very likely that the jury will find that your client is the type of person who is capable of committing very serious criminal acts. Obviously that creates a bias within could create a bias with various jurors and it's also very very concerning. It was culminated in 2014 when the Supreme Court of Canada heard her had to make a decision with respect to how or if these types of Mr big operations would be able to continue. Essentially the court had three choices one that could allow the police to continue operating Mr big techniques without any real constraints. Secondly, they could prevent the use of evidence that is obtained through a Mr big operation, or third, they could place some limitations on a Mr big operation and provide guidance to the course on whether or not to accept evidence, which is obtained during the course of a. Mr big sting. And as, as we've heard the court decided to offer the third option which was providing some guidance with respect to how this evidence and how these techniques are to be, are to be used. And what essentially, or what the outcome was was that the course adopted a two pronged analysis with respect to how Mr big operations were to be viewed by the course. In this paragraph 8586 of the decision just a small day run out quote again states as follows. The first program recognizes a new common law rule of evidence for assessing the admissibility of these confessions. The rule operates as follows, where the state recruits and accused into an infectious criminal organization of its own making and seeks to elicit a confession from him. Any confession made by the accused to the state during the operation should be treated as presumptively inadmissible. The presumption of inadmissibility is overcome where the crown can establish on a balance of probabilities that the probative value of the confession outweighs its prejudicial effect. In this context, the confessions probative value turns on an assessment of its reliability. Its prejudicial effect flows from the bad character evidence that must be admitted in order to put the operation and confession in context. In this unable to demonstrate the accused confession is admissible the rest of the evidence surrounding Mr big operation becomes irrelevant and thus inadmissible. This rule like the confessions rule. In this case, in the case of a conventional police interrogation operates as a specific qualification to the party admissions exception to the hearsay rule. As regard the second prong I would rely on the doctrine of abusive process to deal with the problem of police misconduct. The doctrine has thus far provided less than effective has proved less than effective in this context, while the problem is not an easy one I propose to provide some guidance on how to determine if a Mr big operation crosses the line from skillful police work to an abusive process. Now, with respect to the first prong that of reliability there's some fairly clear guidance. With respect to the concept of abusive process. The analysis is I would suggest as far less clear paragraph 115 just from all day restates. Mr big operations are designed to induce confessions the mere presence of inducements is not problematic. But please conduct including inducements and threats becomes problematic in the context when it approximates coercion. The police operations the police cannot be permitted to overcome the will of the accused and coerced confection, this would almost certainly amount to an abusive process. So the question is where does where does that leave us. And as you've heard, and I have not checked at Linda's numbers I'm sure that they're correct is that for the most part these operations are still being conducted. From what I gather is that the evidence is still being admitted before courts. So, while there has been some guidance with respect to how to analyze these these confessions and this guidance is for lower courts and trial courts. The other effect is that it's allowed the police to ensure that operations that they conduct are more likely to obtain admissible evidence. I'll provide an example and that is, as I mentioned a client of mine by the John Buckley. The decisions involving Mr Buckley are currently available they are reported decisions. I represented Mr Buckley in both 2013 and 2018. With respect to the same matter in 2012. Ms Victoria bronze but he was found deceased in her home. She had been living there with her son john. Mr Buckley on the night of March 1 2012 he left the family home snowstorm to go and buy a pack of cigarettes he was captured on close circuit cameras throughout his town and did in fact go and buy a pack of cigarettes. When he returned, he found his mother a pool of blood on the floor. He determined very quickly that that she was in fact deceased. And according to him freaked out and didn't know what to do. He sat in another room in the house for hours and waited until dawn, at which time he walked a number of kilometers to his sister's home. Mr Buckley was in fact dead. The police were called and they found that Ms bronze Buckley had been bludgeoned to death by an unknown object. The murder weapon was never found and autopsy was conducted, and it was found that she had been struck approximately eight times, at least eight times by an item, while unknown was consistent with a hammer. Mr Buckley was about two weeks after arrested and charged with the murder of his mother. He found that it was very little evidence to support the allegation that he was in fact involved. A preliminary inquiry was scheduled for December of that year, and very shortly before that preliminary inquiry. The crown withdrew the charges against Mr Buckley, he had been released. Mr Buckley said during the time that he was in custody awaiting his preliminary inquiry he had been provided a copy of all of the evidence that the crown had in its file which include crime scene photos autopsy reports, forensic reports, statements and so on and so forth. Upon his release. He was essentially an outcast in his community, people treat him as though he were murder and that he killed his mother. Eventually, he moved around a little bit and settled in Montreal, where he began to work a number of low paying jobs. In October of 2015, the police decided that they would reinvestigate they considered this to be a cold case, and that they would prepare a Mr big investigation for Mr Buckley. He was a subject of surveillance for a significant period of time. And in October of 2015, the, as I mentioned previously approached him at the unemployment office he was there to pick up his employment or EI check his employment insurance check, and was approached by an attractive undercover police officer who provides him with a flyer for something that similar to a job fair, they indicated that they had been quite successful in the past at getting jobs for individuals who were in need of employment. Mr Buckley did attend for that interview and was placed with a company working out of a warehouse. He started at a rate of $20 an hour which at that point in Mr Buckley's life with the most he had ever made. I should point out Mr Buckley wasn't quite a young man at the time. He worked in a warehouse for a number of weeks and as time went on he was asked to assist in deliveries of various products. While he was making these deliveries, it was implied that the company was working for was also part of a criminal organization. The most part throughout the course of this operation which did last a period of six months. Mr Buckley was spending most of his time with one particular operator. Name is subject to a publication ban, but he spent approximately 700 hours with that individual over the course of six months. And during that time Mr Buckley was treated to travel across Canada he stayed in hotels he ate a nice restaurants. He was taken to nightclubs was exposed to large amounts of cash, hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash at a time sometimes was entrusted with amounts of bulk gold was treated to experience such as attending a Montreal Canadians game was provided with a game Jersey. All of these things are things that Mr Buckley never would have been able to experience, but for his recruitment into the criminal organization. As time went on he was asked to participate in a number of feigned criminal enterprises although that was unknown to him. Examples of these were the theft of a laptop from an RCMP undercover car and a stage interrogation and borderline kidnapping of an RCMP officer. As the investigation came to its apex, he was told by the boss that some information had come to light about Mr Buckley's problems in Nova Scotia, involving the death of his mother. The boss told him that his, his information was at the RCMP had reinvestigated the case and that's Mr Buckley was soon going to be re arrested in charge of the murder of his mother. The boss came up with a solution and that was that there was an individual in Quebec jail who owed the organization a significant amount of money was prepared to falsely confess to the death of Mr Buckley's mother. The only way this was going to work of course is that if Mr Buckley provided all of the details in regards to the killing of his mother. So the fall guide would know the details and get them right in his confessions. Mr Buckley just sat down for an interview and was told that the organization knew he was involved, they needed him to confess and they need to provide all the details. Mr Buckley denied his involvement. He was told time and time again that if he did not confess, the organization could not help him. He would also be ejected from the organization they would have to turn his back their backs on him as he would create too much heat on the organization and police oversight. If he confessed, however, he would no longer have to worry about the police investigating him in Nova Scotia, he continued to advance through the ranks of the criminal organization and enjoy the lifestyle that provided. Mr Buckley told Mr big that he knew all of the details of his mother's murder as he had been provided a copy of the police file years earlier. He was the one who found the body and lived in the home so it was very little that could possibly be known that he didn't already know and once again asserted his innocence. Once again Mr big indicated that's, that was not acceptable Mr Buckley had to confess to the events and provide detailed explanation as to what occurred. Eventually Mr Buckley did confess. He said that he struck his mother three times with a hammer in order to collect her insurance. Shortly thereafter he was returned to Nova Scotia arrested and charged. This of course was years after the hard decision. The police were very well aware of her and its implications. And as you can see, very little difference in the way the operation was conducted. In this particular case, Mr Buckley did not provide any information that would not have been known to him, or myself for that matter. Mr Buckley did provide a statement to the police after his arrest of water was held in relation to Mr Buckley for a number of believe it was weeks of evidence. The court found that the confession is not such a reliable nature that it's probative value awaited its prejudicial effect, and it was excluded as evidence. Mr Buckley's charges were then dismissed. So in this case Mr Buckley did benefit from the analysis in her, it would have been very difficult to challenge the confession prior to the heart decision. That being said, he was exposed to the technique itself and was held in custody for significant period of time prior to being released. Granted the police did not feign any significant violence or threaten him in any way. The trial officers indicated that post harsh they had been directed not to do so. They've been told to use less violence and less overt threats and use more psychological interference. They were also told to collect confirmatory evidence when possible to improve upon the reliability of any confessions. These are some of the things and they can certainly go to level playing field to some degree, but the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has not put a halt to the exploitation of accused people or their vulnerabilities at the hands of the police. Furthermore, one undercover operator candidly told the court on cross examination that his group was focusing on shortening the length of their operations and relying less on the organization aspect of the Mr big operations. To prevent the definition of Mr big, therefore possibly avoiding the onus and post upon the crowd. It is also important to keep in mind that post her while the onus is on the crown to establish the reliability of a confession. And accused wish to challenge the manner in which the operation was conducted by way of an abusive process that onus still lies upon the accused in his counsel, his or her counsel. This may require an accused to testify prior to the trial proper in his own defense and be subject to cross examination. This can be an issue and it's something that people should keep in mind should they wish to challenge an operation based on abusive process. The issue of abuse process came up another matter which I was involved in it was a queen versus derbyshire. This was not found to be a Mr big operation but wasn't undercover operation where members of the RCMP posed as members of organized crime. There was thought to have some information regarding the whereabouts of a suspected murderer, the RCMP investigated her at length and listened to her phone via intercepts. They were unable to, to receive any useful information. Through those avenues. So the police crafted an undercover plan that involved approaching Mr. Bishire parked outside of her apartment building entered her underground parking garage when she came home one afternoon. By herself in her car in the dark poorly lit underground parking garage as she exited her vehicle to large men dressed as what she described as high end gangsters approached her demanded that she get back in her vehicle. One of the two officers entered the vehicle on the passenger side while the other blocked her exit on the driver side. She was told that they were here from Montreal, because the murder that had taken place had affected their business and they were not very happy. They needed to know what if anything she knew, and she was told that they meant business. It was conceited understand that they spoke to her in a very direct and threatening manner if not actually threatening her. She very quickly told the police what she knew she said that she was involved in, in disposing of the murder weapon as well as some evidence. They asked her where the murder weapon was and she indicated that the murder weapon was thrown in a river in Moncton. Very shortly after that, the police told her that she was going to cancel everything she has on her schedule that day and accompany them to Moncton. She was placed in the back of a SUV with tinted windows. The police took control of her phone and drove her to Moncton where she described where the firearm was found. She also showed them a burned site where some evidence had been destroyed after the homicide. Upon returning home, the police dropped her off and after discovering all the evidence that she pointed out she was arrested in charge of the accessory after the fact to murder. This was not a lengthy investigation. Mr. Bechier was not being recruited in any way shape or form. But most people can see that there are some parallels with respect to this and a Mr. Big investigation. This occurred prior to 2014 and after the vaudeer for Mr. Bechier had a journey for decision the heart decision was released. I certainly tried to apply the two pronged analysis from her to Mr. Derbyshire situation. And while the court found that the first prong of the of the heart approach was not applicable to Mr. Bechier. She relied upon the abuse of process. Second prong of the heart analysis in excluding her evidence they found that she had essentially been threatened, and that's her statements to the police were in fact coerced. The evidence was excluded charges against her were dismissed and that was upheld by our court of appeal, and the application for leave by the crown was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. So, while the release of heart has made Mr. Big operations somewhat more reliable and somewhat less coercive coercive in nature, it certainly has not prevented the use of Mr. Big operations by the police. And at this point in time, it's very difficult to say how often the police are using these operations as we only appear both the ones which are successful obtaining confession so it's very difficult to ascertain how often these operations are successful, and how often they are not. So if you have any questions that everyone has those are the comments that I have. Thank you very much, but it's, I knew both of those cases and still it because it's fascinating when, when I hear the details of the operations. We do have one question in the comments I have some questions as well and I do want to encourage people to use the q amp a box and and that their questions there. So the first question. See here. It seems that the psychological interference as you put it is as bad if not worse for manipulating people into confessions. Is there any room in such cases to bring in an expert witness such as forensic psychologist to speak to this to the court. I would that would certainly be possible under the second branch of the heart analysis to establish that there was in fact an abuse and that the psychological, the psychological coercion is tantamount to physical threats. It would be possible in the in the in the right circumstances in her that was done to some degree, experts were brought in to establish that he was socially isolated and was certainly prone to police coercion. Okay, another question here. Where, where this, this audience member is in Australia has Mr. Australia also has Mr big things. However, our courts are extremely resistant to reforming Mr big, what can be done. So I missed part of that question. In Australia, there are Mr big things in Australia as well however they do not have any kind of comparable framework as as hard right. So, this person asked what can be done. How can they, I would imagine how can it be a challenge how can it be reform without any intervention from courts. Yeah, without any intervention from courts I think it's it's nearly impossible. There's some type of legislative reform or judicial reform. I mean the police have significant amount of resources. I'm not familiar with the Australian Charter and what their rights are precisely and what their rules of evidence are, but it certainly prove very very difficult here in Canada and a lot of lawyers tried to attack Mr big operations and all but one were unsuccessful and doing so. We have another question here that asked. If you think there is a better way to investigate these kinds of cases then pretending to be a criminal organization I think so. Let me let me rephrase this. You know, in, in a manner coincide to what I was thinking. So, I think a lot of times the explanation that we get for, or why Canada is so attached to this organization is that generally these. These are launched for very serious cases like murder right, where there are absolutely no, you're not going to see this for a simple assault right. And they are very very serious, serious cases where there isn't a lot of evidence but the police has a very strong suspicion as to who they think the accused is so I think the question would be, you know, what would you say to that the police would say you know this is our last resort we do have another way of investigating this. That means we will let you know the killer walk and, and what kind of justice is that so I think. I think this is the argument that they are raising and that and the fact that they are very effective in that in that they do result in confessions and then if there is all in confession there is all in convictions so yeah I would think that we could think of that question this way. Yeah, I mean they do result in confessions and post her those confessions are going to be even more reliable and juries are going to put a lot more weight in those confessions so if you look at Miss Derbyshire for instance she confessed. And she provided physical evidence that nobody else would have been able to find so you know there has to be some balance I would suggest we don't allow the police to do just anything they want to because it may it may close cases. Many jurisdictions do not allow this type of operation at all because they recognize that it's it's it's just right for police misconduct, the police are very well funded, and they are very well trained and it's it's a very unlevel playing So, when you look at as who these operations target, they're generally not the upper end criminal so to speak these aren't high level individuals, these are people who have vulnerabilities and those vulnerabilities are being exploited by the state. So I would like to see the use of the technique, prevented almost in its entirety. That being said that the general public like to see people convicted of the crimes that they believe they, they committed so yeah I don't know the answer that per se I would like to see it. I don't think it's prevented I don't think that's going to happen every time somebody's convicted of a murder that appears to be reliable in a strong conviction of the public's quite happy with that. So there's not much reason for elected officials who appoint most judicial appointments to to really make any waves. That's a great point. And it reminds me of a comment that my colleague Professor Archie Kaiser made when he said you know, when, when an operation when catching a killer requires the violation of so many rules and so many principles and so many values, perhaps it's better not to catch them at all. Because, because ultimately as you said, we're talking here about not only about a very significant concerns regarding reliability and regarding the fact that people do confess and wrong confess wrongly, but also ultimately we're talking about extremely inclusive police tactic tactics and exploitation of the most marginalized individuals in the end, as you noted and in the study that I conducted. Also, I think it was a significant number it was over 60% of the people that had an intersection of mental disorders disabilities. And other addictions generally addictions all those things on top of most of them if not all of them had very significant financial, they were destitute they had the history and unemployment and very low IQ. So there was an overlapping of intersecting issues that the police was targeting. So the thing is that police doesn't really use this operation to catch any criminal or to catch to solve crimes and they're worried about the victims because it seems that in these situations, the victim of smarter criminals will not get justice. Anyway, right because they wouldn't be this this tactic would not work. Rather, this tactic is really very strongly rooted in in exploiting disabilities and in exploiting significant issues that the targets are having and which outside of this context, we would never allow right or we would be a call to hear about. So somebody is asking in Buckley I believe the accused was quite young but legally an adult. Do you know if these operations happen to young people as well so people who would be under the youth act.  The reason for that is that these operations are very, very expensive. And the end result would would not produce what the public, I think would expect so oftentimes young people who are charged with murder are charged as young people, their sentences are far far shorter than what an adult would expect. Also the rules surrounding confessions by young person are very different than an adult. So I suspect that if this technique were to be used on a young person and I'm not familiar with the case where it has been that it may be somebody very close to the age of adulthood. But I think that the youngest that I've seen was somebody who was 18. There were a couple in since 2014. There were a couple of people who are 18 at the time of the, at the time of the undercover operation. They were fairly brutal and it's very interesting because heart does very specifically say that the young age of the target should be considered against admitting the evidence because of their immaturity level because they are more easy to be influenced and manipulated. And yet in, in the cases that I reviewed the confession was admitted, even though in one of them. Not only he was 18 but he actually fell in love with the operator and they, he was hoping into having a love affair with the operator but that didn't seem to convince the court that there may be a reliability issue with that confession. Another question, which I think you would have sort of answered, or we would have answered is whether there are any patterns with what kind of people police are targeting with Mr. Big Stinks and do they exploit their target, target weaknesses. We sort of touched upon that. I don't know if you want to add anything. I haven't seen a target witness per se Mr. Bouchard would be the closest thing to a target witness. There was actually a very interesting article, or sorry, a matter before the court here in Halifax the individual they were looking for was arrested and charged with murder numerous years later. Someone had called Mr. Bouchard to testify against that individual. It was interesting because the that person's defense lawyer argued that evidence obtained from a witness from an abuse should not be admissible. Not only against that witness but against anybody that witness may testify against that argument was unsuccessful. Certainly does leave the door open for the police to use coercion against witnesses rather than accused in order to force them to testify it matters they don't want to testify to. Well, for those three says that's actually the RV Bradshaw. Well, it could be that in particular case is not every Bradshaw but whether or not it certainly leaves the door open if the witness is called to the stand and Mr. Bouchard had to testify in her own defense. I'm here to testify about her fear of the undercover operators. So the crown had a document that that they cross examine her on about her knowledge of the murder and the murder weapon. She did not want to be involved. She was fearful of pretty much everyone involved. And the court found that even though the information obtained by the crown was only obtained through an abusive process that it would be admissible in another person's trial. I think there be sure was a little different also because there was so much violence involved the very overt violence involved so probably the vulnerability of the target would have been less relevant at the moment where basically she's threatened with being beaten up. But I think the other weaknesses would probably matter in their decision of of targeting individuals, whether witnesses or or otherwise. Somebody's asking. Do you think a revamp of the confessions rule more generally would be necessary to further curtail Mr big operations. Is that realistic. The confessions rule changing anytime soon. There has been some very minor modifications and it held court levels with respect to voluntariness. That being said, it's, it's very difficult because if they were to change it in a way that's allowed the defense to argue that undercover operators were in fact a person's an authority then all undercover operations. Of every stripe would be prohibited under the confessions rule. So, I'm sure there could be some some tankering that could be done. But I don't see it happening. I have a couple more minutes and somebody wants to ask more questions feel free to type otherwise I'm just going to ask you this. And I think it's sort of came out of the discussion but I would, I would be really interested in your opinion on this issue. Well, a lot of people you know and perhaps from other jurisdictions consider that heart is is is progressive because it has imposed some limitation you yourself have said that it has led to being using less overt violence and let's read which of course. It is not bad. So it might have led what change in the way the undercover operations are are are going. It seems like a good step. It is an exclusionary rule now as you said it has changed the burden the burden is now on the crown at least for the reliability stage. Next then however, the cynic in me is asking has hard in fact led to legitimizing these operations and providing them a foundation and a strength that before that they perhaps didn't have because there was always something that they are just managing to exist because of the loopholes in the legislation. Now we have a legislation basically says you're legitimate is just that we're going to have to apply a framework whenever you try to bring the confession such obtained. I don't know if it was ever legitimate per se I don't think any court felt that Mr big was illegitimate I mean they time and time again allowed these confessions in despite some very appalling circumstances and Mr Buckley is is is the PG version of Mr big if I can say that compared to some of the things that took place for 2014. And prior to heart those individuals those confessions went in those individuals were convicted. While I see what you're saying I'm certainly happy that the Supreme Court of Canada decided to do something I mean it was certainly open to them to do nothing and leave the way it was. But I feel it was always been legitimized. The public is happy to have crime solves and there's no grounds well from from anyone other than potentially defense lawyers and individuals involved. So civil liberties to that are really opposed to this. Most members of the public are very happy to have bad guys off the street. So I think it's always been legitimate I think it's been curtailed to a limited degree, which I'm happy with, but I think the court could have done more. And I mean I take your point you know in real in relationship to Mr Buckley as you were saying you know, probably these. His confession would not have been thrown out right his confession would have probably gone in without the hard framework. And yet unfortunately does seem that at least Mr Buckley seems to be more of an exception, and I'm not really sure what it was about it there were definitely comparable cases where the evidence was not thrown out especially in some of the prairies jurisdictions which is quite interesting. So, so it does seem that overall hard had a pretty negligible impact actually in terms of these operations which is, which is surprising and unfortunate. So I'm not, I'm not, I'm not convinced on on on the long term impact that will continue to have on these operations, perhaps we'll see more in the years to come. Eventually, eventually everyone will know about us and it will be less useful at that point. I think we're all waiting for that to happen for everybody to read in the newspapers about that right, but as you and I were talking before this talk we all think that this will never happen to us right and we would be able to see it coming. So, perhaps it's not always so, so true. So somebody asked if there are, are juries given any kind of warning about evidence from Mr big operations, especially given how much weight these confessions carry. So, in the situation where they haven't been thrown out. Mr big confession get to a jury but that that being said, I would certainly be asking for some type of instruction. There are instructions given to juries about confessions in any event in that juries are not to put all of their eggs in that one basket. I think it would certainly be determined by the facts of a particular case for instance if McHugh took the stand and explain why he confessed, you know, falsely. Most judges would would provide some type of a limiting instruction with respect to how members of the jury were to weigh that evidence but that being said instructions from a judge, you know, confessions are very, very powerful. And as you said, especially in the context, let us not forget this is just not just the confession in which the guy sits next to the police officer and says yes I've done it. These are in the context in which this individual there is a lot of evidence of how he seemingly voluntarily joined the criminal organization and committed a lot of seem to be involved in sketchy activity, which of is not just character evidence but it's allowed because it's in the context of the, the operation so it's not just the confession but it's the confession and the background of this guy that clearly makes such a strong impact on on a jury with or without any kind of warning. Well, in post hard effect if I just interrupt for a second that the confessions are actually going to be much more powerful because the judges already made a determination that they're reliable confessions. So there's going to be indice of reliability which is also going to be left with the jury. So, while a judge will likely ask a jury to examine whether or not there are any confirmatory points of evidence. It's really already been determined by the judge that there are in that this is a reliable confession so I suspect that it would be much more difficult to argue that this is a false confession post hearts than it would have been pre heard going back to my initial question. So somebody says, can you talk more about the, about the public and how much does the public actually know about this practice. I can now watch TV. I read magazine so you know it's even in the newspapers I guess it depends what individual member of the public is interested in. I know I've had you know friends and family and people who've asked me about it. Not in the context of my knowledge but just generally because they've read about it and they found it interesting so it's out there. It's, it's not a secret. I mean, I think that people know about them but they are always it's also how the information is presented. They, I mean, I remember reading about Buckley in excruciating detail but that's because Mr Buckley was a, his confession was thrown out he was released, and he had the opportunity to go and give an extremely detailed account of what has happened to the press right, but I think. And as you said, Buckley is actually not the worst of those cases by comparing to so unfortunately in some of the worst scenarios. The targets did not get the chance to explain their side and to, to, to give this kind of details so I think that there may be some information out there but I take, I take our commenters point that you know, I don't think the public knows a lot of details about what, what goes on sometimes. And when they do they're always qualified by the horrific crime that the target has allegedly done which is probably, you know, it's making it hard to be sympathetic right to the situation so no that's true. And so, so there is more information than there was five years ago I think that's probably correct. Okay, so we're going to have to stop here we probably be I would at least I would be able to talk about this all evening but we'll have to stop here I really appreciate your time and your expertise path. This has been a really interesting talk and the video has been recording and is going to be available on the YouTube channel of school of law so we are thrilled to have had you here thank you so much. You're very welcome thanks for having me.