Mm-hmm. Hello, and welcome to another JavaScript SEO Office Hours. It's me, Martin Schlitt, from the Google Search Relations Team. And I'm here to answer your questions on JavaScript SEO. And a few questions were already submitted. So I'll go to the submitted ones. And then we'll take questions from the audience. If you want to join these live hangouts, you can go to google.com. Slash webmaster slash connect. We have a calendar where they are scheduled. Or you go to youtube.com slash google webmaster slash community. And I'll post the link to these recordings a few minutes before the recording start so you can join them live. Or you can just use the YouTube post to post your questions and then see you at the answer later as the recording goes up. Cool. So let's have a look. What was awesome. The thing is, if you ask questions that are not related to JavaScript, I would ask those in the regular SEO Office Hours, or the webmaster Office Hours, because this is specifically aimed towards JavaScript questions and problems. Right. So is it fine that we serve the content pages without any JavaScript for bots? Is that considered cloaking? No. If it is the same content or roughly the same content, it doesn't matter if there is JavaScript or not. And if it's slightly different, that is what we would call dynamic rendering. We have a guide on dynamic rendering as well. And that's perfectly fine. That's not a problem. Does it have to decrease the time to download and increase the number of pages Google bot can crawl within the same budget? Maybe, maybe not. That depends on many different factors. So dynamic rendering usually, when you render the page without JavaScript, as the request comes in, it usually takes longer because you have this extra rendering step in the middle of it. So that sometimes makes the site a little slower, but that's normally neglectable and not a big problem. Again, it depends on your setup. You should measure that time. It might save you a few requests in crawl budget.  And that means that you get a little more requests in your crawl budget. But then again, crawl budget is only relevant if you have a really large site with, I would say, like a million and up pages. And there's other factors that go into crawl budget, so you might not see an increase in pages being indexed. But you might. It's not impossible. OK. Hi, Martin. Is the client-side JavaScript redirect treated like a 301 immediately considered permanent like a 302 temporarily or something else? It's considered like a redirect. We don't really make that much of a difference in terms of 301 and 302. It does have a different outcome for the users. 301's browsers catch that and immediately jump to the target destination, whereas with 302, it basically jumps to that original URL first and then jumps to the target. Client-side redirects for browsers are pretty much like 302's. So if you can avoid them, I would. If you cannot, then that's OK, too. So it doesn't really hurt anything much. So you don't have to worry about that big time. Someone wants to join the session but doesn't have the link, so I'll just quickly post the link here as well. We rebuilt our website in React and implemented a mobile navigation from one of the component frameworks, which is not in the DOM until a user clicks on the hamburger icon. Could that have a negative effect on how Googlebot sees our page? None of the links are visible in the HTML. You answer your question yourself. If it's not in the HTML, we're not going to see it. That's what's going to happen. And if this is your navigation and your navigation is the only thing that tells us about your page structure, that's not great. I would argue that it's always better to have the links in the HTML in the DOM, maybe hide it, maybe move it out of the screen, whatever, but don't just remove it entirely. You can totally have something that is invisible in the DOM and only comes in on user interaction. We wouldn't do the user interaction, but as long as it's in the DOM, we would see the links. Whereas if you really just need a user interaction for the links to be injected into the DOM, then that's what we are not seeing. So that's not great. Is there a difference in how Google handles history push state versus history replace state? Good question. I don't know. I think there isn't, but I don't know for sure, and I would have to test. You can probably test that as well. I'm not 100% sure. I guess I would assume that there isn't a big difference, but I am really, really not sure. And I'm not sure if we would replace state as a redirect, but I would have to check. That's a really good question. I like hard questions. I'll come back with an answer maybe on Twitter. I'll see. Thanks, Marty. Sorry for that. Since the bot should not really care about custom web funds, is it OK to serve the bot a page that loads faster and does not rely on the custom funds? Could that have a positive effect? I wouldn't do it. Yes, it could have a potentially positive effect, but it also means that you have a more complicated setup because you then have to inherently figure out is this a bot or not, and then have additional code that deals with this. Additional code usually also means additional bugs, no matter what you do. Like there will be weird side effects that you might not have foreseen. I just wouldn't do something for such a miniscule improvement. A better way of dealing with this is to either prevent us from loading the web funds, like put the web funds somewhere where you can robot them away so that we can't fetch them if you really care about this mew of performance and set your CSS to funds so that they swap in default funds and don't have the flesh of style text upfront. But honestly, this sounds like something isn't broken and you just want to tickle these last few seconds out there, don't. The complexity that you incur is higher than the benefit that you potentially gain, so I would not do that. As mentioned in the JavaScript SEO Basics article, yay, someone's reading my documentation. That's great. Using meaningful HTTP status codes can be impossible for SPAs with client-side routing. Yeah, the article goes on to suggest using a redirect to a server-rendered URL for this purpose. The solution seems like an overkill 404 page. No, no, that's not, because you should be able to configure your server so you can set it to a 404 status code for some URL, and then you just redirect to that URL. I don't see why that's hard. I think in Express.js, there's like five lines of code, including the client-side part. Does Google really not recognize a 404 at this day and age? Maybe you can shed some light. We do. We do. If we think that it's a software 404, we do usually flag that, but it's such a bad idea and it's so easy to prevent. If you don't want to do the overkill, then just no index the page that is a 404. That's also cool. That's one line. That's why I have these both examples in there. We do recognize soft 404s normally, but there is a risk, and there will always be a risk, because what we are doing is our machine has to guess, where there is a mechanism, where there are three mechanisms where we wouldn't have to guess. The 404 as a server-side response, which is not available in the client-side rendered and client-side routed application. I understand that. That's one way of not having us guess and actually having us know that this is a 404. The no index, where we don't know it's the 404, but we wouldn't put it in the index for sure, so again, no guessing, or the redirect to a 404 page. Also, no guessing. So if you can make something more solid, why wouldn't you? Especially if it's a really, really small amount of code that you have to write to make that happen. If you're okay with the risk of potentially ending up with something in search results that is a 404 page, go for it, but then don't complain to us later. There are solutions for this that make it clear that the page shouldn't be in the index. So you can use them or you can not use them. That's fine. Most soft 404s are being called, but I know at least one example in the recent past where that didn't work. And then people were like, why is this showing up in search? It's an error page. And I'm like, you're not telling us it's an error page. You're actually not even saying the word error anywhere on the page. You're just showing unrelated things. So yeah, you can not implement that, but then you'll live with it a little bit of risk. Cool. So those were the YouTube questions. Thank you so much for submitting. I hope the answers were helpful. If not, you can totally ask follow-up questions in the next week's edition. And I see that we have a bunch of people here in the audience and I wonder if the audience has questions as well. Hi, this is Gayatri and I joined a bit late. So my question was a bit of a dynamic rendering. So I think I missed that part. Can you just go through that again, please? My name is Gayatri Sampath. Did you ask a question on YouTube? Yes. Why am I not seeing it then? Let me see. Ah, yeah. Okay, so I see you ask how to join the session. And then I'm not seeing your question. Could you ask your question again? Okay, just give me one minute. Why am I not seeing the question? You search for top. Actually, so the issue was that we have, we are using React.js for our website and the navigation bar links, they're not showing up as links in the Google Search Console. When you do a live question, when I see the View Crawl page, I don't see the live link. It's just dumped as a chunk of text. So we got back to the developers team and they told us that dynamic rendering is in place. And you don't have to worry about this. But I'm just concerned that if the link shows of the main domain won't be passed on to the navigation bar categories or the content silos and then onto the individual pages. So I wanted to confirm with you if dynamic rendering is in place for our website. So how do I confirm that it has been implemented properly and it doesn't hurt our SEO? That's a good question. It depends a little bit on the dynamic rendering solution that you have in place. If it's RenderTron, RenderTron adds an HTTP response header to a page that it rendered. I can actually probably show this, give me a second. I need a new Chrome tab for this. And then I need a RenderTron instance. Okay, so if you are using RenderTron, which I don't know if you do, and you don't have to, there's other solutions. I'm not saying that this is the right solution. I'm just saying like this is one where it's relatively easy to spot what's happening. Let's see, I think this needs to be HTTP. So if I render and serialize this page and I get a, this is now a dynamically rendered page and I can tell, because if I go into the network tab and I'll actually make this larger real quick that people can actually read what's happening in here. If I load this again, I get the headers and the response headers contain an X render RenderTron header. So RenderTron makes it quite easy to see if it has been used or not. If you would see that in the response headers in search console, then you would know that RenderTron was used. If not, it's relatively easy as well. You can go to, let's say the mobile friendly or actually the rich result. I just go for the mobile friendly test. If you were going to the mobile friendly test and I, oh my screen is still too large for the actual windows that I put on top of it, you would look into the rendered HTML. So what makes me nervous is that you say like you don't see the links in the rendered HTML. That is great, into the layout again. Ah, yeah. Anyone having a question? Silence. Now is your time. Actually, I do have a follow up question on that. Sure. Don't a header bar links have more priority than footer links or like footer links, footer links carry low or weightage, right? When it comes to Google, just like forward links or things like that. It usually doesn't matter that much. Okay. The answer is as usual, it depends, but normally it doesn't have that much of a, it's not something that I would invest a lot of time in. Okay. Good. Awesome. Is there any issues with using web workers to process something quite large in the background and then spit that data back? Oh boy, I feared this question would come. Yes, I did a test on web workers and I noticed that we are not perfect when it comes. That's an understatement. We are not talking as much about web workers yet because I think it's a fantastic technique to actually offload like heavy work to the background, to a separate thread basically, but I noticed that Googlebot isn't dealing perfectly fine with it yet. We are working on that, but currently there are certain limitations. I tested what happens if you do an asynchronous communication flow with web workers or basically like I asked the web worker, load something for me, then it asynchronously loads something and then comes back later. That doesn't seem to work reliably in Googlebot at the time of this meetup or this recording. This will hopefully change in the future soon, but at this point we don't have guidance on web workers yet because we hope to fix that rather soon, but we'll see there are other things with higher priority at this point because web workers are a relatively exotic feature on the web platform still, but we would love it to be less exotic because I think it's a great way of offloading work from the main thread. But be very careful and test that very carefully because there are very clearly limitations, especially when the worker does something asynchronously. Right, okay, thank you. That's a really good question. Wow, holy moly, some of the interesting questions. I also saw a question from Rina now that I apparently missed earlier. Gyroscope-based site using Angular, 10K URLs, which is the most important content on this site and have good interlinking, but still not even a single page is indexed. Looks like these pages don't exist for Googlebot, even in the log file, I don't find these URLs. However, URLs can be indexed for life tests and the other tools. Well, the 41 requests, that doesn't say much, but I'm wondering what happens if I throw this into the tools. It is, so is there a status in Search Console like discovered but not indexed or are we waiting for the crawl queue to do things or what's the background on these? Let's see, all right, so this is mobile first indexed. We did crawl this, what we're saying, this is non-canonical, that's interesting. Okay, let's run this through the mobile friendly test. I'm sorry, so if I run this through here, because it is possible that we are not seeing something, it is possible that there is a caching issue and none of these things would necessarily surprise me. I can't, I just get a link from any of these tools. Everyone has some sort of redirector in here. Okay, when I look at it, hmm, okay, let me share my screen, because I think Rina is or was in this, was in this hangout so she no longer is, that's unfortunate. I'll show it anyways, hoping that she sees the recording. So if I share this tab, you should be seeing my screen in a moment. I think you see my screen now, I'm not so sure. The layout doesn't help, let me actually change the layout real quick for spotlight and then hopefully my screen is showing up. You can see, I can see that. Awesome. So here we see the slash watch slash movies is the header and the loading spinner. And I'm not sure what would I see if I would go to that website directly, movies slash watch. Pretty sure I wouldn't see just the loading spinner. I'm actually seeing just the loading spinner. So that isn't great. But okay, right. So we see a, we see a loading spinner here. If I go to the main page, I see the same. No, now I actually see content, that's great. Okay, so this page does load a bunch of content. And was it movies watch or did I get that wrong? Watch slash movies, watch slash movies, okay, let's see. Interesting, right. So watch slash movies, uh-huh. Well, okay, so we're not seeing that, but if we look at what we are seeing here, we see the header and the loading spinner. That's what we see in the mobile friendly test for the URL slash watch slash movies. And if I test the main domain, I see a header and a spinner. So as far as Googlebot is involved or as concerned, we are seeing two similar pages, which means we end up eliminating one for the other. And if I were to judge others, you're trying to use a service worker, maybe that's failing somehow. So I would definitely like debug this with your developers, because that's not something that you would want, I would say, good. And then there was a question in the chat, I believe. Yes, one easy question, JavaScript used for accordions, is that a problem to access behind the content behind the, for instance, the info? Generally no, as long as it is in the DOM, then we should not have a problem or inherently have a problem accessing this. Ah, you're back, okay. Hi, I just had a look at your website. Do you hear us? Hello? Rina? Because we hear you. All right, going back to the question with the Sky URL. Hi. Hello. Do you hear us? Rina? Hello, yes, we do hear you. Hi. Hi, yes. Hello. Do you hear us? Am I already here? We do hear you. Sorry, I missed the enemy. Not a problem, you're in luck, I still have it open, so I can show with you what the problem seems to be. Give me a second. I just need to reorganize my windows and also the layout. I'll present the Chrome tab. I think it's this one. Yeah. Okay, so basically, okay, so our problem is... Hello, yes. We still hear you. Hello. Hi. Rina, we could still hear you initially. I'm not sure now we don't hear you anymore. Okay, okay, so I start now. So basically our problem is we do have a majorly movies content, right? But still not even a single URL is indexed in Google. However, the things look fine with the movie test and all. So this is a directory page only. It's a subfolder. Watch movies. There are multiple movies, a dedicated page for the movies. This is not a particular movie page. Ah, right. Okay, but the thing is, so this URL, Watch Movies, is showing us a spinner. No content here. There's only the main navigation and then there's the spinner here. No, no, no. It's not already... Yeah. But that's what I'm seeing here. That's what Google bought to use. Yeah, because... Right. Wait, let me see. Can you open the live site? Ah, yes. Um... No, no, no. Wait. Like this. Watch slash movies. Actually, I'm just going to click on you slash movies. So this is your live site, right? Yeah. So click on any of the movies. Like one day. This is the actual movie page. That was a sub-folder only. Okay. Then let me have a look. Loads forever. Sorry for that. Yeah. That looks good. That looks like we have a bunch of content. That's pretty nice. Okay. So if we have seen this URL, let me check. 17 days ago. Indeed, we're not knowing about this URL yet for some reason. Interesting. But these URLs are not indexed. Even in the log details, I don't find any movie URL. That's an interesting question. It looks like we have discovered it from the site map, but it doesn't look like we have done the rest of this. So let's see what is here. Do we see this properly? So slash movies is indexed. That one we know. That one we have in the index. But then this one, which is clearly linked, we haven't. And this happens for the entire site. Only we do have one particular section, which is an episode. But site map is already submitted in the place. And even URLs are not crawled. Only discovery is there. Discovered but not crawled. Any other error is there? Right. I don't know why that is, but I can try to find out why we are not crawling these. I'm pretty sure I can have a look at why this is happening. I don't have an answer to that from the top of my head. Awesome. Okay. Slash movies, slash TV, slash music. The content under that particular folder is not. So all of these main pages are indexed, but none of the sub pages are indexed yet. And I don't know why either. Okay. I'll have to have a look at this because I don't know from the top of my head. Yeah. So there is definitely a link here in the press. Do we know about this URL? Have we discovered the URL would be the real question. And if we have discovered the URL, why have we not? Okay. Interesting. We haven't even discovered this URL. All right. I'll have a look at what's going on here. If it's a problem on our side, then we have to fix it. If not, then I would probably respond on Twitter or something. If you ping me on Twitter publicly, then I can potentially say something about, like, well, there's a problem with this and that. But it looks like we should be able to find this. Okay. Interesting. Coming back to the original question of the Sky Accordion, I'll try out the URL that you have given me here in the chat. And I'll see what we see when we go to that page. Because, theoretically, it's not a problem to have an accordion. Wait, where is the accordion to begin with? So you said eginfo. Ah, that's like a tab thing. Not really an accordion. Is it? No, no, it's an accordion. You're right. So if I take this into one of our testing tools, like the mobile-friendly test, I really need to get rid of this overscan issue. I say that every week, and then I still don't do it because I'm so busy with other things. I'm too busy to actually fix the overscan problem. So for accordions or any UI element, it's not a problem if the content is invisible. It should just be in the DOM. If it's in the DOM, we can discover it and work with it. If it's only injected upon user gesture, there was an earlier question. It was like, we have a menu that only is inserted into the DOM when you click on the button. Googlebot doesn't click, so Googlebot didn't see the button. I actually didn't click the button and didn't see the content that was injected. Now I need to figure out the content that was hidden in the accordion. So if I click on info, I'm getting the German version. Sorry for that. It's in the DOM, so we can see it and we can potentially index it as well. So that's not an issue. Any other questions while we are here? Martin, I don't have a question about structured data, but it's off topic. Can I ask it here? Sure. I mean, no one else is asking questions, so go for it. Okay, so actually we have a fairly big website which has around like thousands of pages. And we're looking to implement a structured data markup. So I understand that the organizational level of structured data can be implemented in the headers across all the pages of the website. But if I have to do it for individual pages or categories such as articles, or blog content, or news, or contests, do I have to go to each page manually and add the structured data for each of them in the first leg of implementation, or is there a better way to do it? So optimally, your CMS does help you with that in some way because your CMS should know what kind of page each page is. If your CMS does not have any support, then you can maybe talk to your CMS provider or to your developers, because hypothetically developers should be able to make decisions based on the type of page and then programmatically add the structured data markup. That should be the easiest way to do. There is a possibility that you can do it with Google Tag Manager if you're really, really careful, but that is more brittle than implementing it into your site through your own developers or through the CMS. So if you really cannot make changes to your own code, then maybe try to figure out a programmatic way of detecting which kind of page it is and then where to pull the data for the structured data types. But I would advise against it unless you really, really have to. Okay, so even with this implementation, can it be done for the existing pages as well? Sure, sure. Okay, got it. And I have one more question. It's about adding review ratings in Google Organic Search. So recently in September 2019, Google said that it is no longer going to publish reviews for organizations and local businesses. So with that, can you still add reviews and give Google the possibility of displaying it when it organically searches for it instead of us fronting for it? And if we do that, do we have to enter the review manually every time it changes or does it pull automatically from Google My Business account or something like that? I don't know. I don't know about Google My Business. I don't know the policies behind structured data. So that's, I don't know. Okay, got it. Thank you so much. You're welcome. All right. Sometimes people are still submitting questions via YouTube. Let's check if we have additional comments. No, not today. Any further questions? Audience questions invited. If there are no further questions, I would say... Martin, hi. It's me, Ferhat. Hi. Just one simple question. You told us that when everything is in the DOM, then this should be not a problem, but can this have an effect on SEO when content is behind tabs or accordion at that cave? So you shouldn't hide your primary content behind a user interaction. If you consider that content to be like central and critical and important, then I would suggest that you don't hide it behind a user interaction. But if you have your content behind a user interaction, it doesn't hurt. It doesn't make a big difference. I don't think we pull such content in for the description snippet. So if we decide to rewrite your description, we wouldn't use content that is hidden on the page, but I don't think it hurts big time. Again, make your primary content visible immediately. That's my biggest suggestion. Okay, in that case, all content behind the info, right? If that's the content you really care about, then yes. Yeah, okay. Thank you. You're welcome. You're welcome. More questions? Oh, there is a... Only this kind of URLs are indexed. Oh, you're facing an internet issue. Okay, that's unfortunate. Yeah, so as I said, for your page, I would have to check what's happening there, why we are not seeing these things. I can't answer on the spot for these things, as the URL seems to be fine. And I'm not sure why we wouldn't see the linked URLs. That requires me to make sure that it's not something on our end. It might be something on your end, but I can't tell you what without looking at it and seeing the reason as to why we are not seeing something specifically. Further questions? There was so many windows. There are no further questions. Then I would like to say thank you very, very much for joining this week's JavaScript SEO office hours. And check out our YouTube channel to see when the next ones are announced. I'll probably announce them pretty much right now so that people can post their questions there. They will be recorded as well. I'll put up the recording hopefully soonish, I guess maybe Thursday, maybe Friday. And yeah, keep being amazing.  Thank you very much for joining. Have a fantastic time. Bye-bye. Thank you so much. You're too much. You're welcome.


The Cass County Sheriff's Office is reporting that an adult male has been rescued from Hay Lake, however the search continues for a second party. According to the Cass County Sheriff, Tom Birch, authorities first received word that two parties had been thrown from a boat on Hay Lake around 1 30 this afternoon. First responders and deputies arrived and located an adult male who had been operating the boat. The man was transported to shore and treated at the scene for his minor injuries. The search still continues, however, for another adult male who was a passenger in the boat. North Memorial Ambulance and Air Care along with the DNR and Lakes Area Dive Team are assisting the Cass County Sheriff's Office with the case. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland news, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


My name is Der Kukstra, the project manager of the IPMS project and today we are here on the technology exhibition for the Oramia zone and region. The exhibition is basically meant to portray the different activities IPMS has been doing in the Oramia region. So we had three sides, one was in Goma, the other one is in Meso and then here one in Ada and so we brought together what we call the value chain actors for each of these different districts to show what they have been doing to try to improve the commodities they have been working on. So you see coffee over there which is an important commodity in Goma, poultry which is an important commodity also in Goma but we have also brought in a number of actors who are also contributing to the development of agriculture in Oramia district who are also asked to portray their products. So I think that's in a nutshell what we are trying to do here, showing a bit our approach so it's not only about production but it is also about agri-business and showing it to people what can happen if you do a proper development approach.


Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the stockswish.com. I'm going to do an overall market review here at the close, let's after the close here today in Tuesday June 17th. I'm going to go over the spy and the cues. I think the spy is a driving force here right now in these two markets. Spy is holding extremely bullishly and the cues are following suit, not as strong of a close here in the cues today as in the spy, but I think the spy is a driver here. The spy had more of a lift to get going here to get up over that high than the cues has, which you can see right in here. High for the cues will be over 93, got within 30 cents of that today. And the spy has to get up here over 196, got within a dollar of that today. So this, I think the spy is a driver here. The cues are just waning and once the spy continues to lift the cues are going to go with it. And that's how I'm seeing this. Look at the volume in this market here today on a Tuesday in June. That's pretty good. So I had called earlier the targets for both the markets today and it got to them. Target for the spy was 195, I hit it. Target for the cues was the high of yesterday, which was 92.70 or 93. So it did not get up to 93, but it got up to 92.70, got up to 92.70. And lo and behold, you're surprised that people tried to short this double top in here again. No, but it's, you know, it's really not a short. And I want to just point out one thing. Adobe is gaffing up tonight. So, you know, the market is going to push higher tomorrow. There's just no doubt about it. And it's higher anyways, but, you know, with the lift of Adobe, it's just going to fly. I think we actually gap up tomorrow morning. So call for the market tomorrow morning and on the gap, I think we gap up or neutral. Neutral slash bullish in the gap tomorrow or gap up. A small gap down would still be bullish. In fact, I can't think of anything here that would be bearish. I can't come up with one scenario that the spy would be bearish in the gap tomorrow. I mean, I could. I could tell you what it would do, but it's not going to happen. So basically, that's the end of the story here. Neutral gap in the spy, the QQQs tomorrow, bullish. Gap up bullish. Small gap down bullish. It's just bullish. There's nothing else to say. And the market could fly tomorrow. The market could fly. The market could fly tomorrow with Adobe and the nice follow through today and the spy and the close up to the target of $195. And the market could even gap up tomorrow at $196. I mean, that would be a dollar gap up, which isn't that big. But I mean, the market could actually be a bullish gap up. Continuation gap tomorrow. We'll have to see. We'll have to see what happens here between tonight and tomorrow morning. And I don't know the reports that are coming out tomorrow morning. I didn't check yet. However, right now as it goes into business today, this market closed very bullishly. And people are seeing this now and they're seeing it. And so the target for the spy is $200. Could it get there this week? It has to aggressively get over $196 probably by tomorrow for that to happen. Okay, it's $5 away. It's not that big of a deal. But it has to really follow through here now with no hesitation. Is that going to happen? It could. It could. It could because anything could happen here. All right. And anything could happen here in the fall astute of a trend. That's what I'm trying to say here. Okay. So the target is $200. Whether it gets there this week will depend how we trade tomorrow because we'd have to follow through on the buy set up trigger and the bullish movement today continuously without any let up. Is that going to happen? I don't know. We really rested in here bullishly as it was a bullish rest for two days. But the follow through did happen convincingly today and we have to follow through with that. Okay. So next target though is $196 and we have to get over it, not a retest. I think because this is holding very well the possibility of getting over it immediately is high. Could we retest the $196 number and knock it over it and then come in and come into a deeper level of support? Yes. Okay. Because this is a very small level of support this is holding here. So we could come up here. Here's the scenarios. Trade up to $196, which we're going to do and I think we do that this week. Then knock it over retested and come into here and then still end up getting over the high and going to the target of $200 in like a month or so. Or come up over here, carry through, follow through, get over $196 and just go right to the number to $200. Or wait, wait, wait, rest and rest and rest, hold bullishly and take all the money and knock it over the number this week and follow suit then next week. Okay. Into the end of the month. And those are all the scenarios. But I really have a high level of conviction. This gap really here is not going to get broken. I think this gap here may hold their whole year. And I really think the spy is going to go to some crazy number before the end of this year that people aren't going to expect. What is that number? $250. $250. And that will mean one of the most bullish years we've seen here in a long time because the market actually opened. Let me find the open hours around 180 something here. First trading day of the year, right in here, was January 2nd. January 2nd, the first trading day of the year, the market opened at 183.98. Basically, it opened at 184 in the spy. Okay. So if the spy does get to 250 this year, that's a huge rally taking place in the market in one year's time. And many people thought that wasn't going to happen because we sloshed around in January, February, and March and didn't really start getting going to April. This is what I find so interesting here. Everybody kept saying, well, we're extended in here. You can see this here now. All of this here was not extended. Look at how we traded in January, in February, in March, in April. We are not extended. This is new buying that took place here in the gap that happened on May 27th that is lifting the market and it is not turning back. It's new buying coming in. And you can see that every day. When you see the buying coming into the market, you can see it. You can feel it. You can actually feel it. That's how I'm calling the longs that I'm calling. That's how I'm seeing the things I'm calling. I'm seeing the market trade. I'm seeing the buying scoop it up. It's like a shovel. Like a shovel comes in and scoops it. Here, going back to the one-minute chart. This was this morning when I called this long. It was aggressive, but I mean, it was real. I mean, it was right there. It was right in your face and I just called it. When I call stuff at live time, it's because I'm seeing it half at live. I'm saying take it, take it. It was being scooped. Market came down, scoop. Came down, scoop. Came down, scoop. Scoop, scoop, scoop, scoop, scoop, scoop. Okay? Every time a market comes down, guess what? It gets a scoop.  It's getting lifted. It's lifting it. Sometimes it lifts it slow. Sometimes it lifts it fast. But it's getting a lift. And that means buying. And it's new buying. And it's nice, nice new buying that's happening here very steadily. And everybody in the trading room that took the long in the market this morning actually got paid and went to the target. Went to the target. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful trade was more than a dollar from the entry. So I actually had Rister Ward in this. Actually it was Rister Ward in the long trade in the market today. He held all day to the target. Brilliant. It was a nice trade. And he had a place to lure the stock. So the queues did not get up to 93 today. But again, you know, the spot didn't get up over the high today either. So there's a lot of different scenarios that could take place here. The most likely high odds though is for the follow-through to happen here this week. Whether or not we do the retest and then come in or get over it remains to be seen. But nothing would surprise me. Meaning we could just get right on over it. Because it's new buying. New buying that's here in this market that's coming in. And if you look at this bigger picture, I mean it's so easy to see this. This is so easy here to see that we're not extended. It's a nice, beautiful, nice uptrend that's happened all of 2013 into 2014. The market pretty much took a nap from January to April. So I see big numbers here and targets for the spy this year. 250 by the end of the year. 250 by the end of the year there. Let's just put it out there for the spy. Okay. So people that want to go long, it's not too late. You just have to get in here. And people that keep shorting this are just going to keep getting run over. And they're really going to run over here anyways. But people keep trying to do this. And if this retests, if this retests this and does not get over it there, market's going to get over it quickly. Quickly meaning in a couple of weeks, not a couple of months, the way this happened here, this transpire that took like two and a half months time. It's not going to be the same setup here. It's not going to be the same thing. Market isn't going to struggle getting over that high. It's either going to do it immediately or it's going to come in fake like it's going to break and go lower and take a little bit of time, a little bit of time and run through the people that keep shorting it. So, nice chart, nice bullish chart here. Beautiful, beautiful movement. If anyone's interested in the Golden Gap class, the class is this weekend, June 21st through 22nd. If you want to learn how to trade and learn how to read gaps before the next earnings season. Earning season starts after the July 4th holiday and you can learn how to trade gaps and trade all of July and all of August. Busy time to trade what I do, which is gaps. And I think it's actually going to be a really busy time in the market period because I see the spy making that crazy number over 200 in July or August. Like that number will be hit in the summer months, which is going to be something that is going to floor people because it's typically a time not to trade. But if people take the summer off and don't trade, even if people that want to just trade regular strategies or trend trades are going to miss the move in the market because it's going to happen and if it doesn't happen in the next two weeks here in June, it's going to happen in July. Spy will hit 200 before July or in July. So it's going to be a fun summer here to trade. It's going to be a great summer to trade. It's going to be a good summer to make money, which is exactly what we're going to do here. So have a great evening, everyone. If you're interested in more information, email me at Melissa at thestockswish.com. If you like to trade and you like to make money, I would not take the summer off no matter what you do, longer or short. You're going to miss a great move here in this in the market. It's going to be astonishing. And then, of course, what's going to happen is that all the more people will come in into the fall. And then, again, that's what I see taking the spy to some really crazy number that will be unexpected, which I see is probably going to be around 250 for the end of the year. So have a great night, everyone. If you're interested in the Golden God class, email me at Melissa at thestockswish.com. Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.


I know that folks want to keep talking to lawyers and look at it, but the idea here, and for you to see Senator Benning, um, Senator Lyons, Maury, Senator White. Oh, hello. Just sit here. Hi, Jeanette. You look different today. So Mr. Chair, this is something of a very minor cleanup on a small revision in the bill. The large construct of the big change in the bill about changing liability standards, Senator Lyons, you know, seems fine. For my association for justice was looking at all this to just make sure there wasn't any real limitation of liability from common malpractice law. Because, as we know from years of big work in here, the sorry works legislation, the mediation, medical malpractice issues are at this point generally kind of left to where they are. And so our intention was just to review this and make sure it was kind of a really targeted piece of special language in the torque environment, which this is now with the addition that in good faith the boosters of the bill put together last night, and that's appreciated. The addition of the last clause provided, however, this does not otherwise limit the liability of participating physician. You know, remembering that you hang a lot of consumer protection on this supervision plan and it's a big change to kind of free and give more room for physician assistance. And so the backstory on the intensity around signing that form sounds interesting and something to assuage. And this little addition saying the bill does not otherwise cloud the torque environment on malpractice really sharpens the focus of that special language. It meets the goals of the Health and Malpractice Committee that doesn't interfere with current medical malpractice. That's our sense. We'll look at it. Well, I'm glad to know actually probably the agenda for Eric to draft it. Can you draft it? Lions and Sears. And you'll present it on the floor based on the work. Senator Bank? What is the status of it? It's on the floor. Second reading today. This would be an amendment after the second reading. So, yeah, it would be on the floor at one o'clock today. I jokingly said if I'm there, I've got people coming up from Bennington and I'm supposed to meet them. I'll be up there by 1.15 or so. Okay. Everybody okay? All the parties. Thank you. Anybody else who wants to be on it? So obviously welcome. Senator Bennington. I think I'll just get a follow-up there. He's a defense lawyer. I'll leave it for you because I don't know enough about it.  Otherwise, it doesn't mean that you can go at both of them at the same time regardless. Well, you probably could anyway. Well, you can go after anybody you want. Has their malpractice anything to do with it? You know, I had to draft the amendment this morning because I didn't realize that no one had drafted it up. And I just wanted to point out to the committee the only change from the existing bill is adding the term provided, however, this does not otherwise limit the liability of the participating physician. The rest of this, and it isn't clear the way it was drafted. The rest of this is in the bill as it passed the Senate Health Department. That's just the amendment. It's just that last sentence that was added, and that doesn't indicate that. And I apologize for that. I don't know if I get it. Thank you. Eric, are you free sometime this morning? I guess my question, Eric, can I ask him a question? So that phase provided, however, it's not otherwise limit the liability of the participating physician. Does that imply that regardless of the physician assistant did something egregious and it's not, and it was the physician's decision to do it? Does that mean you can still go after the other physician, the participating physician for the same thing? I think that whatever the underlying law is on the ability of the physician to be a defendant in a situation like that is not altered by this. I think that's the intent. If under the underlying law they could not, then they still could. Under the underlying law there might be a theory that they could bring in the physician, then they still could. Underlying law related to physician assistants or underlying law related to liability? The underlying law of medical malpractice. I think if I'm reading it right, the intent is to leave that unchanged. Other than the sort of one little layer on top of that, which is that you cannot bring in the physician as a defendant based on the existence of this practice agreement alone. That one particular fact. So I mean if the physician assistant went outside of the scope of practice indicated in the agreement, you cannot hold the practicing physician liable. I think that's right. Generally speaking, under the doctrine when you can hold an employer liable, if you act outside the scope, that's always the test. Whether it's within the scope or outside the scope of employment. All of the things being equal that there was a phone for somebody to call to the physician. Alright, I'm going to take this. Cool. Thank you. This is a floor amendment for you two. Present on the floor. That's the plan. All in. Sears. Yeah. Nope. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Pleasure to have you here. Thank you.  Yes, sir. We have witnesses scheduled to then comment on that. James is on his way. Huh? Pepper's on his way. Good. Alright. So we have really gutted this bill in terms of any additional holding. You know, which the original is a three-year hold on. Correct. Alright. For the record, Morning Fox, Deputy Commissioner Department of Mental Health, I'd like to start by saying thank you to the committee and to the chair. I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of almost each and every testimony around this bill, which has been to say thank you for introducing this bill. This is a discussion that has been long needed. It's been my pleasure to be a part of this conversation and getting this bill to the point where it is now. As the chair mentioned, we've had conversations with state's attorneys as well as the Legislative Council in trying to provide some further input on the language. I wanted to thank Eric. Your work on this has been tremendous, and thank you for your patience as we've been working around numerous illnesses in our department trying to come up with the language and finally get it to you and get it in front of the committee for today's testimony. Interestingly enough, the language in here I can kind of go over again if that would be helpful for the committee. And so, some of the specific provisions that we had looked for to have included in this bill, just giving me a second as I'm trying to reorient myself to this first time actually looking at it on April. But the basic tenets are of the different things that I testified to last week have all been incorporated into this version, including some of the following. The idea that competency and sanity evaluations are now to be separated, that if there is competency and sanity question that the competency evaluation would take place first and that sanity evaluations would only take place once competency has been established or that the evaluator feels that they can have a finding of confidence to stand trial. And this would help, I believe, with Vermont in becoming more in line with the best practices throughout the nation in regards to that. This language also includes the party status that the department had requested when competency and sanity is requested or that sanity and competency have been raised as an issue, that the Department of Mental Health and the Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project shall become parties to these cases. Again, as the Attorney General's Office for the Department of Mental Health and the Mental Health Law Project are the folks who really truly understand some of the ins and outs of our mental health system, the needs of individuals and can speak to those needs most appropriately going through in the court cases. I can continue as long as there are questions. Well, currently the department is not a party? Currently the department is not a party in criminal cases. And part of the issue is that at times there may be questions as to once the decision of competency or sanity has been determined, the next step in the process is to go to hospitalization hearing where they determine whether a person should be ordered hospitalized or placed on maybe an order of non-hospitalization. And it happens that at times the department is notified of an order of hospitalization that we were not party to or not aware of. And there are times that, and significant times where we've had some strong disagreements with the court's decision in that and had no ability to express that to those concerns or the clinical concerns that might indicate that a person was actually not appropriate for hospitalization. And especially in light of limited resources and psychiatric inpatient facilities, we're looking to ensure that the folks who are ordered to an inpatient facility truly actually need to be in an inpatient psychiatric facility. Maureen, I'm looking at the bottom of page two. The top of page three. Yes, sir. If I go before a judge and I have a client who we are questioning whether they were sane at the time of the event, but there's nothing about my relationship with that individual that leads me to say, judge, I don't think this person is competent. I would only be asking for a sanity evaluation. This language specifically says that the examination of sanity should only be undertaken if the person is determined to be competent first. If you want to go through the expense at the time of a competency evaluation if that is what hasn't been raised. I don't think it was our intent to have language that one would have to go through a competency evaluation. I think our intent with the language was that the evaluator had no questions about it. There was no question. So they would just continue on with the sanity piece. It's possible we can make some language changes. It's able to form the opinion. It presumes that he's conducting the evaluation of competency. And the way this is designed, that issue would have to be a separate court hearing from the actual target which is the sanity knowledge. It doesn't make a lot of sense to you. It is the way that comes out. That could be a problem. Maybe Karen could... Yes, if I may. Karen Barbara General Counsel for the department. Actually, if you look up at the top of page two, it talks about examinations shall have reference to one or both. So it does talk about how you could only have a sanity or only have a competency if that's the only issue. And then if you look at the section I think you're talking about, it is talking about that this psychologist or psychiatrist has been asked to provide opinions on both. And so I think that's when that would play in and come into effect. But the statute does actually talk about only being able to order one of them if that's what's being requested. So you do think the language covers it, but certainly we can continue to work with that council to get concerns? Yeah. So, I don't understand it right then. Maybe it's weak. There's no address to an entertaining point. Fine 17 page two, if the psychiatrist or psychologist has been asked to provide opinions as to both the person's competency and the person's sanity, and then you could say, at the beginning of the second sentence, line 20 page two, in such cases, the examination of the defendant's sanity shall only be underpaid. Is that right? So that links them up. That way, there wouldn't be the situation that's in our bank. I think. Yeah, that goes for that. Yeah, we'd be good with that as well. But it still makes it too separate. You've heard the term of other person's competence. If there's questions for them. If there's a question about that, and I'm wondering about their understanding. It seems to make sense. We can, we'll hear from other witnesses that it might not. And Pepper, you can, you kind of can't wait to the party. Feel free to jump in here. I know you and Morning Gore. Right. I missed the, sorry, James Pepper, the pharmacist. Sheriff's. I missed the question, but if the question. The bottom of page two, let's start with his light change. And they said, the only good thing is that the psychiatrist is able to formally opinion that the defendant is confident that he's going to stand trial. The issue is, if I have a client who I'm interacting with, and I have no indication that this person is in jail, I wouldn't ask for a competency evaluation. But if there's a question about what their brain was like at the time of the event, I would be asking for a sanity evaluation. I don't understand why you would even leave the impression that a competency evaluation should take place first. A separate course for shading before you can get to the actual target of what the problem is. Oh, and that was our exact concern about that decision as well. It sounds like we would be supportive of the change. Yes. Some of the other language that we had worked on that we had asked to add in is actually later on in the bill, part of the forensic study piece where it talks about that part of the study would look at different models such as the psychiatric security review boards. We also added in language also to study guilty but mentally ill verdicts in criminal cases, as those seem to have kind of risen to the top of some of the discussions around how some of this, from a mental health perspective, can address some of the concerns that this bill originally sought to address. And so we want to make sure and really do, again, this is something that when the Department of Mental Health says we'd like to study, folks should sit up and take notice because we get asked to do a lot of studies and a lot of times and kind of get weary of studies. But we feel that this is an extremely important topic that we want to be judicious about and careful about. And my understanding from talking with other national experts who have worked with other states around this topic that it's all too easy to have unintended consequences in relation to the setup of things like the psychiatric security review board or adding criminal verdicts, so guilty but mentally ill, things of that sort. And so we wish to be able to study that. As part of that study, it was mentioned in my testimony last week that the Department would suggest the addition of having an external expert slash consultant be a part of the study. And the Department would also ask that some funds be attached or requested to be able to do that so that we could have an expert come in to help us, someone who has national standards, a national perspective that's worked with other states in these types of issues so that we're not just having our own internal conversations but that we actually have outside folks who have some expertise in this area that can help guide some of those conversations. It's possible I'd have to look into that. I don't mind putting in appropriations. It's unusual for the administration to support an additional appropriation. It would be difficult for us to have a robust study if we did not include outside experts and fail to see how to do that. Another question, maybe I'm missing it. Where's the victim's piece? There's a notification. It's page five. All right, I just watched and it was done. Thank you. We didn't make any, there was no real substantive changes to that other than what Mr. Pepper from the state's attorneys had suggested last time, which was the addition of the incompetent to stand trial. The victim gets notified by the state's attorney if they so desire. Correct, and then this also put in the attorney generals if they happen to be the one prosecuting in cases that Mr. Shear brought up in last week's testimony as well. Okay. James Pepper again, Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. You know, we added, we asked specifically for section five, which is on page six, that's the quote unquote, Cheryl fix it allowed that permits this estate retained expert to examine a defendant for competency. Again, this would put these competency examinations on the exact same footing as the insanity evaluations where the state can seek their own expert to evaluate a defendant. We think that this is the most appropriate way to place the, to make the change. We consulted with the attorney general's office and we're in agreement that this just adds a section to the kind of discovery rules that allow where it's a section right after the insanity evaluations, add one for competency evaluations. Other than that, you know, we looked at the, some of the additions from Department of Mental Health about adding party standing. We don't have any serious concerns about it at this time. We got them last night and I just want to just reach out to a few more people. I know that the bill has a possible vote tomorrow, but if somebody's found incompetent to stand trial, what happens? Do they get competent enough to stand trial at some point? That's, presumably. That would be the intended part of the study looks at helping Vermont create a competency restoration program. Because as it stands right now, there is no legislative mandate to restore someone with competency. And so current practice is it's random to, you know, someone's mental health treatment and they no longer may require, say, inpatient level of care. It doesn't necessarily equal that they're now competent. And so, you know, we have that struggle. I'm generally more familiar with the insanity plea than the bill that they lack competence to stand trial.  I think the competency issue was really raised very often in that area. It's usually been the insanity plea. And in various cases, it can vary. But in those cases in particular, you're correct. So I'm sorry, you're kind of caught off guard here. Did you end wanting to testify together or do you want to have anything to add? You know, this bill, I think is a very good bill. I think that the study committee in particular addresses all of the areas that the original bill was trying to address, but maybe in an insufficient or potentially unconstitutional way. And so we're very much supportive of the kind of forensic study group and we hope that, you know, we can come back with a polished product for this committee to look at or the committee next door. And with respect to the kind of other pieces of this, the victim notification, I mean, that's something that can happen immediately and, you know, in many cases should be happening, you know, by our perspective. And honestly, under the kind of some of the other provisions of the law, it seems like it should have been happening, but then it got interpreted differently by the Supreme Court. So I think that that is an incredibly important piece of this. So I don't have much to add. I think this made that section effective on that. I look to the mental health just because they're the ones who would be notifying us to see if they could do it. Well, in terms of caring for Dr. McCulloch and Matt Lario, he put that out there. So I was just there aware of that. I mean, I'd have to check, but my current thought is I don't see what the barrier to that would be from our perspective. It is limited to the big 12 crimes. No, I know. I mean, not to show the same. Right, of course. That's obviously the... Obviously of any crime that's a serious thing if there's a victim. Any crime that's serious. Any crime that's serious. Crimes where there are victims identified are not much more serious and victims need to be taken into account. Get on TV, say it, some crimes are not serious. We've been taught on the same worst thing. Well, I know, but I'm afraid that, you know, my opponent... We have an opponent among the Senate and Governor. He's running under a Republican ticket. Running for both? That's huge. He's also very outspoken about the amount of huge voter fraud in Bennington or something. Is this the guy with the dog on this thing? He's 20 years. But I have no idea who you're talking about. Mr. Huy, you'll become familiar with him when you have your... I don't know who you're talking about. All right. Great. I thank you all for working on this. Are you insured you have any comments? A few of them are in the technical nature. If the committee wants to hear that now or some other time. Yeah, sure. Sounds good. Thanks, Senator. Can I make comment after, at some point? We can put you in. If we have time. Today, tomorrow, Chris, you would also... Yes, if you have time. Tomorrow, for all of you. What is very short? Well, we're hopeful of that. Come on. I'm not kidding. We know you. We know you. We're happy to hear from you. Morning. I'm David Shearer with the Attorney General's office. Thanks for having me this morning. We tried to do a very rapid review of this bill. I apologize. I didn't have a lot of time. I just wanted to make a final division look at it. And there were just a few things that they were wanting to bring up. Some of them are actually current law issues, but they spotted in here, which, again, in those places where it mentions only state's attorneys, they would appreciate having the Attorney General's office mentioned as well, since the AGO is often a party in some of these... It's often a party in these cases. So, for example, on page 2, line 15, is there. Moving on from that. One question that the criminal division had, and I apologize that I wasn't here for Deputy of the Deputy Commissioner's testimony earlier. On the top of page 4, I understand Attorney McCullis here, too, and may be able to answer this, they were... The criminal division was... Our criminal division was wondering a little bit about the purpose of the Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law project, having party status at a hearing where the defendant would presumably be represented by counsel. Understanding, of course, that they do represent folks in civil peer commitment hearings and just wondering what's the policy rationale was there. Our criminal division's view of that was that it makes sense that the Commissioner of Mental Health there, but with somebody who is currently represented by defense counsel and now also with the Commissioner of Mental Health coming in with the clinical side of things, what the sort of policy rationale behind this would seem to be giving defendant a second sort of counsel, this time employed by Legal Aid, and just trying to understand where that was coming from and what policy end that was and again given the context of this being a criminal proceeding with counsel already present and I assume that folks here in the room will be able to help us out with that. The final thing that I'll bring up here was at the... actually near the end in the report section, there is on page... on page 8, that says the working group and this is lines 13 to 17 working group, it instructs the working group to do a sort of large survey, which is entirely appropriate, we are very much in favor of that, but we were also the division, our criminal division was also curious then if you skip ahead to page 9, the bottom of page 9, lines 19 to 21, there's a very specific directive about the Connecticut system and it's not to say we take any position on that, whether Connecticut is good or bad, but we're just it seemed a little bit unclear to have a sort of, let's do a broad survey, entirely appropriate and then a seemingly specific directive to look at Connecticut, it may be that that's where we want to go, there's again no opposition. It was a bit of a test of morning regarding how good Connecticut's model was, so we wanted to make sure that that was reviewed and that's totally fine. We could be put in that frame of reference that, you know, we had some testimony about that last year. I didn't catch that before, but this very specifically says there will be legislation adapting that model. It doesn't say to study it and to look at it, it says there will be legislation, proposed legislation to adopt that model. Yeah, I don't think we need to do that. It should be over here in this study. We'll take this study also. You don't want it there. It shouldn't be there like that. You don't want it to say shall adopt it. Well, it's presuming the outcome of the study before the study is done. Why would you even say anything? If you were going to say something in the main one. If you were going to say something in the main one, I would say that it shall study other states including the Connecticut in the study itself. Yeah, but not presuming that you come to a conclusion. That's right. Also part of that is proposed draft. Just take that sentence out. I would take that whole thing out. Thank you. I didn't catch that. And the only final thing I mentioned is Attorney Pepper already testified to the competency hearing piece. And we are in the community and we are in the community and we are in the community. We are in the community. We are in the community. We are in the community. We are in a hearing piece and we are in agreement there and happy to answer any questions with anything else or that in the bill. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are you ready? Sure. Is that Valerio? Defender general. Took a look at this. Had some Um, I wish I had my glasses as much as anything. Um, I'll tell you what I said. Readers, is that what you need? Yeah. Yeah. Um, I left them in my other coat. Wait, can I have some right back here? Oh, that's okay. Thank you. You're not like those threes or fours. No. Are they right? Okay. Oh, geez. How do you get around? No. Just, I'll figure it out at some point here. Um, you know, the biggest questions that we had about this had to do with bringing in, you use the word parties a lot in this. And you talk about the, we have a criminal matter pending. And probably somebody's already gone through this, or at least looked at this issue. And usually the parties are the state and the defendant. And I just didn't know if, you know, if the commissioner of mental health was also going to be a criminal defendant party or maybe the, maybe legal aid also. What does party, what do you mean by parties in this? Is it, you know, what does party status mean when it, when you're talking about mental health? The commissioner or the state's attorneys to respond to that question. They might be interested parties in some way and have a legal position to put forward. I don't think that they rise to the level of parties in a criminal matter. It confuses me. I just don't know what that, what that means. What rights do you get? Absolutely. So. Well, this, this actually came from the department of mental health. So. So I think the problem with the health concern is that there are times when, when the competence of your sanity are raised with the contemplation of putting someone into the commissioner's custody. And so therefore we do have an interest in, we have before, and several people maybe disagreed with what has happened. You know, they're making decisions to put people in our custody without, without getting our opinion or our clinical opinion on it. And so what the department is really seeking is to be at the table to get the reports to have the opportunity to present to the court our concerns or our recommendations. I think, however, you want to phrase that, I think that's what we're getting at, is that we would like to be at the table and we would like our clinical rationale to be heard by the judge if you consider it in the case when thinking about committing someone into our custody. Is there some other terminology other than party status open to that? To me, they sound like witnesses. Almost. I mean, if they're going to be presenting a clinical opinion, that is contrary to, then they should be subject to cross examination and examination under oath, just like any other witness, if they have a, if they have a position that's based. I'm asked, I've kind of asked the same question. I, I understand what their role is after the criminal case is over, and that doesn't, doesn't bother me. And I actually, we've talked over the years about when we get to the point of the hospitalization or non-hospitalization where we've spoken before about having the legal aid, legal aid pick up the case at that point. They do more work with the Department of Mental Health as far as the therapeutic end than the Defender General's office does, and, you know, they have more expertise in that. I mean, there's individuals within the DG's office who are as good as anybody, but I can't guarantee that, you know, any attorney representing anybody all over the state who might have a mental health defense or case. The Department and Children's Families role in applications, for example, of where you're determining whether to place a child in custody, how does that work? Because there, aren't they a party to that or a non-hospitalization? Well, the state is the party. It's not DCF versus... But DCF is there. Yeah, and they put social workers or people on the stand and you can cross-examine them and ask them questions and test their opinion as to why they're recommending what they're recommending. You know, the state is the party that they are, I don't think they're parties. They're just their witnesses. You know, party status to me raises other issues, and I actually don't know how it would even work. Did this... I have a lot... I have questions about this more than I had various issues. When you were early on the proceeding, the beginning of the bill, does this, on page two, and I had a note on beginning on page three, are you... Is this proposing that in every case where there's a mental health issue that competency and sanity evaluations be done immediately at the same time? Proposing some changes. Okay, because it... You described that. Yeah. It read that way to me and they're really very... So, Senator Benning brought it up and nice to see you both on the same page. And we didn't even talk to each other. I was with Pepper, too. I mean, we were all... Does he agree? The idea here is that it's a sequencing of when the competency and the sanity evaluations will take place, in particular cases, and that was not as clear in the draft. So, the... I don't know if you have a general want to add this, but the way the post changes... So, you're on the bottom of page two, minus 17. Yeah, right. So, it only would apply in situations where... If the psychiatrist or psychologist has been asked to provide opinions as to both, both the person's competency and sanity evaluations, in situations where they've been asked to provide opinions as to both, then the sequencing kicks in. The opinion shall be presented in separate reports and addressed separately. And then to start the second sentence by saying, in such cases, the examination of the sanity is going to be undertaken if the competency formulation is done. So, when they're asked to do both, they're separate and... That's the sequence that they go on. That's the idea. What is the purpose of that? I mean, to ask that. So, there are numbers around separating the competency and sanity evaluations. Is that your question? Right. It sounded like you're almost combining them as opposed to separating them. The language that the place council mentions should be basically saying that when the court orders both competency and sanity, competency evaluations shall take place first before we do an evaluation for sanity. In cases where just competency or just sanity is ordered, we will do just competency or just sanity. And the idea is that if you're having a covenant that you don't do the sanity exam until you've been found competent. Just so that everybody's aware, you can raise... You have a period of time to raise sanity. You don't have to do that immediately at the very beginning of the case. Sanity is a defense that can be raised only with the consent of the defendant assuming that he's competent to stand trial or she. And so, sometimes what it takes is the gathering of information that you don't have at the very beginning of the case. So, just so that you're aware, the timing of this, it's not neat like this. And the way some of the clients address these issues, because you might be competent, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're well. And making a decision about whether or not you want to raise a sanity defense can sometimes come and go. And if you want to tie it with a bow early on in a kind of easy procedure, that's probably not going to work. But I can see, you know, if there are enough ifs, ifs, ifs. If this happens then this happens, if this happens then this. That's fine, but that's not often the way that it happens. I had already talked about before that the notice issue regarding victims and we have no problem with that. And now we see it in a draft and it's worthwhile. I'm running this by our appellate division between last night and this morning. I haven't seen any of them. But if you go to page six and seven, particularly page seven involving treating a sanity examination like a non-testimonial order, it's in that kind of same section, medical inspections, handwriting samples, rule 16.1. I think that there might be constitutional prohibitions against compelling somebody to have a sanity evaluation. I mean, I actually think they have a constitutional right to refuse to be examined if they decide that that's what they want to do. And I know that this may arise out of some cases that have occurred in the last couple of years where the state was seeking evaluations of the defendant in cases where mental health issues were raised, but there was no authority to do that. But I think the reason there is no authority to do that is you probably have Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights that you don't have to participate in those evaluations. So I don't think you can statutorily overcome those. Well, not the part that's not on page seven that's underlined in yellow. Well, it's similar to what's on the bottom of page six. I think the existing amount permits the ordering of a sanity, when the defendant raises a sanity as a defense that can order the examination so the proposal is to allow it for competency as well. Amounts it to what? Confficiency. Hi. These students are from Miami. We're welcome to share. Thanks for being here. I hope you had a great time. And I hope to get a picture with you later. I hope so too. Unfortunately, we have a crowded room here. Welcome. That's all right. I mean, I'm talking about about sanity, please. And people are deemed to be not guilty by reason of sanity or not competent to stand trial and changes that might be made in that particular law. So I see. We got here. I'm going to nap. I hope to go on and don't need these. And guys go to school there. They're all. Same thing happens with my school goes somewhere. All the girls go. I don't know what committee they're in. I'm sorry. So what I'd like to do is get lucky to have you for and buy.  Okay. On this, on this. You're general. So you ever hear. I hope you never need. But if you do, it's all right. I'd like to get back to you on the cost of this constitutional issue. I wanted to run it by, like I said, I just I sent it over to a pallet and, you know, we're going to take it up tomorrow. I think I'll have something for you by then. Okay. The, and I actually, I know the same things regarding sort of the directive language on Connecticut. I don't know what's so special about Connecticut. Yeah, I was here. I saw that. But what I do, what I do know about Connecticut is they're good every five to 10 years. Where they create great systems. You know, we're going to take it up tomorrow. I think I'll have something for you by then. Okay. The, and I actually, I know the same things regarding sort of the legislation. Where they create great systems. And then by year seven, they don't fund them. And then there's a lawsuit. And then they get a whole ton of money. And then it's great again for another three to five years. And then they don't fund it. And then there's another lawsuit. You can be true about them all. You know, we try to get along here. That's what I have. Thank you. Thank you. I think I'll put a glass of Lucy that puts you up next. Lucy Garlin from representing. I did want to say that in the event that legal aid does want to, if somebody is declared incompetent or insane at the time, and we get to the hospitalization hearing if legal aid and we talked about this before, if they want to pick up the representation at that time for purposes of the hospitalization hearing. I've said it before and I'll say it here just so we're clear. I don't know we don't object to that So Lucy Garan DRM, I will be very short On page 8 with the work group. We're hoping to add a representative of the designated hospitals to the work group appointed by boss The hospital association so there are five designated hospitals in the state So we just with like a seat of the table UVM medical center CVMC the retreat Springfield They have the Wyndham Center Oh No, they may be bankrupt they're not a designated hospital I think the morning can tell you Okay Still exist they're still taking Psychiatric patients just voluntary They voluntarily chose as a January one not to seek redesignation while they're going through their kind of full process with Springfield hospital It's possible in the future that may change but right now. They're not currently does name for involuntary psychiatric patients Did you repeat the line? So a representative of designated hospitals appointed by the Mon association of hospitals and health systems Why just so all the youth Thank You senator Sears Chris Venno from the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services the only question I had in pepper may actually have an answer for this is that There I would like the state's attorneys in the AG's office to have a Policy and procedure around notifying victims and I would suggest that rather than opting in that they opt out So that it's incumbent on somebody to try to notify the victims If they have not opted out of notification He And his brother still lives in Shaftesbury and wasn't notified that the guy had scondid and it's like It's a long story for a little failures, but to make a long story short The fact is that they evidently have been confused about signing up for them victim notification so they weren't the Victim's wife was notified but the brother wasn't This kind of confusion about that so it might be I I think that's probably a good idea Will say this for your state attorney she more than willing to help get him signed up Because it happened This morning So that's my only recommendation Because then I think it will give it some importance things just you know years later, and I just think that every attempt should be made to notify victims If they want well, I can see If they don't Conversation, I mean this guy had a number we also talked about expunging his record, so it was more than just And talking with him He said every time this happens And then they would opt out right And we actually we were talking about this in the office and we have two long time employees Who actually victims call them? They they were so sort of paranoid that they didn't even want to sign up for the victim notification automatic one but you know 15 years later, they're still checking in With our staff because they're worried that people are going to get out Okay I Got some extra time I was going to talk to Karen Barber one of the things that might be better Grishan if you're ready, I never thought we'd get to you today Good morning for the record Brian Greerson chief superior judge speaking to revised draft 4.1 183 section one. I'm looking at line Slime 16 commissioners shall be a party when issues of competency or sanity are raised I had a chance to at least get this out to the judges a quick response and in my view And then we've discussed this before and other committees is that I think it's appropriate Not when the issue is raised But once there has been a competency determination if the individual is bound to be Incompetent the next step is the hospitalization or I think you refer to adhere Hearing regarding commitment, so it's a hospitalization or non hospitalization hearing and And there was a study commission. I want to say to maybe two or three sessions ago involving all the folks that have been testifying here and I my recollection was that there was consensus that at that stage at the hospitalization Hearing or non hospitalization hearing that it made sense to then bring in the department of mental health as a party as well as legal aid and the primary thinking at least My recollection was that At the competency stage, it's still clearly a question of public safety And criminal behavior if you determine if the determination is that the individual is incompetent to stand trial Then at least at that point the focus turns to not punishment but Treatment and I think both legal aid and the department of health are better informed at that stage as to what What is necessary? I think the last Forget the bill number. I don't know if you found it Eric, but That provision actually went through in a bill form Through the house and I believe it came here, I don't know that we ever had a hearing in front of Senate judiciary But it may be one way of resolving what I think was a concern by the state's attorneys Was to leave the state's attorney at the table at the hospitalization hearing but still allow the DMH and the Attorney General's office to come in And they could work together at that point, but I think it would be important to bring in Jack McCullough and folks from Israel those are the folks that if it once it's in the civil Forum, they're the ones that are going to be involved anyway So I agree with the concept, but I think it's later at a later stage that would be appropriate Under section two Hearing you're saying that's the appropriate time for them to be party. Yes. Yes One I think you guys have to think about what that what that language might read. I think there was some Concern expressed by the Defender General about what the party's wording means in that context as well Either keep it in that place or tweak it a little bit I'm sorry about this continue to be heard maybe Or something Or strike it just keep it a later piece Most of the most of the issues I'll be glad to talk to DMH rack They clearly should be involved at that hospitalization As to what notice it may be a matter of getting notice of the earlier proceedings and not necessarily party status. So that may be Maybe one way of resolving So section two The current statute Seems to require that the psychiatrist conduct every examination and that an examination by a psychologist be included when the defendant has a developmental disability I think it's a matter really of clarifying Is it just the psychologist or do they intend that a psychiatrist should be involved in every evaluation and then only bring in Psychologists when there's a developmental disability I'm in section two and this is all of course, this is the current law So one of them just raised a question of Does that mean that in every case there is a psychiatrist and only? Bring in a psychologist When there are cases involving developmental disability Or if it is a case identified as developmental disability Psychiatrists still have to be involved and so I think of more matter of clarification And again, I'll be glad to talk with folks from DMH and On section three we have no No comment it makes sense we agree with section four that notice should be required When the person is discharged, we have no objection to that and we have no comments on Section five. I'm sorry again. We have no objection And they have no comments with respect to section six or seven one matter that's not Part of the bill that has occurred at least brought to my attention recently when Individuals are found incompetent and we move to the next phase other than an Extremely serious violent offenses Most of those cases are dismissed without prejudice at that stage and then they go to the civil process We discovered recently that at least in one County and I don't know how widespread it is and I'm looking into it that they have left those cases open Without dismissing them sometimes for ten years or more Which Raises all kinds of questions about the conditions of release that may have been imposed Time ago and so they the thought was that there ought to be some consideration to When the case should be How long does the case stay open and if we're going to be talking about restoration services? You probably wouldn't want to dismiss it but the question is how long should a case remain open? And so we would suggest the committee may want to consider that as a We didn't take this up tomorrow Along with the robot Most people are we have not yet heard History don't want to testify Tuesday We should be ready to mark it up. I hope that everybody will have any suggestions and by then it gives you That's all I think this bill would go to help them out Thank you, that's all I think you And what somebody else wants to test Everybody can be back. Yes Okay Born there grew up in Chastbury graduated from Mount Anthony in high school in the first class to actually go through Four years there, so my old stomping grounds as they say Oh most of her I would just make the comment in the section on Studying forensic needs that the state's mental health care ombudsman ought to be included there And that's the state's protection and advocacy system, which is disability rights for my Thank you Thanks for that advertisement All right, we'll take a break


So, in this question, the area of a rectangle gets reduced by 9 square units. If its length is reduced by 5 units and breadth is increased by 3 units. If we increase the length by 3 and the breadth by 2 units, the area increases by 67 square units. Find the dimension of the rectangle. Okay. So, let us start with some assumptions. So, let us say, so this is the solution. Let the length of the rectangle be L and similarly, let the breadth of the rectangle be B. Therefore, area of rectangle would be length into breadth that is L into B. Okay. Now, they say the area of a rectangle gets reduced by 9, so that means LB minus 9, so reduced by 9 when if its length is reduced by 5 units, so L minus 5 and breadth is increased by 3 units, so B plus 3, right? This is the first equation. You can simplify it and write LB minus 9 is equal to LB plus 3L minus 5B minus 15, right? So this LB and this LB will get cancelled and you will get what 3L minus 5B and this minus 9 goes on to the right-hand side becomes minus 15 plus 9 equals 0, so simplifying you will get 3L minus 5B minus 6 equals 0. Let it be equation number 1, okay? On the other hand, they say if we increase the length by 3, so L plus 3 and the breadth by 2, so that means B plus 2, so this will be the new area and the new area they are saying will be original area plus 67 square units. So let us again simplify this, LB plus 3B plus 2L plus 6 is equal to LB plus 67, so LB and LB gets cancelled and you will get 3B plus 2L minus 61 equals 0, so these are the two equation number 2. So what can we do? We can eliminate, use the method of elimination. So let us multiply this equation by 2, so that we get 6L minus 10B minus 12 equals 0 and let us multiply this equation by 3. So we will multiply the first equation by 2 to get 6L minus 10B minus 12 equals to 0 and multiply the second equation by 3 to get 6L and then 9B plus 9B, right? 6L plus 9B minus 183 equals 0 and then subtract, so this is minus minus plus, so it will become 19B minus 19B and this is plus 171 equals 0. So hence B is 171 upon 19 to give you B equals as equal to 9, okay? Now when B is 9, you can find out L, so let us use the first equation, so 3L minus 5 into 9. This is the first equation here, minus 6 equals 0, so 3L will be equal to 51, right? 95 is 45 plus 651, so L is 51 upon 3 that is 17, okay? So hence dimension of the rectangle is 17 and breadth is 9. Let us check if this is true or not, so hence if I reduce, so what is the area now? LB is nothing but 17 into 9 which is 153, right? 17 or 9 is 153 square units. Now if I reduce the length by 5, so it will become 12 and then the question was if I reduce the length by 5 and increase the breadth by 3, so it will be 12 and this is 144, right? Which is nothing but 153 minus 9, that's correct, first condition is met and the second condition is increase length by 3, so it will be 20 and increase breadth by 2, so 11, so it will be 220 which is 220 is nothing but 153 plus 67, right? Yeah, so hence both the conditions are met, right? So hence our solution is correct, so L is 17 and B is 9.


Welcome to our office, on this tour you'll get to see how the developers work to build the new dashboard, the new heartbeat and all the cool tools to help you grow. It's themed for Halloween, we had an amazing party here and the decorations are still up. Every developer gets standard issue, 2 monitors, a 27 inch and a 24 inch, some have 3. They get the razor keyboard as well as the type hand razor mouse and some custom builds. We have 33 seats in this office, currently we're occupying only 20. Don't you want to come here and join the freedom team to develop cool stuff on YouTube? Just apply at www.freedom.tm.staff. In this office we have a lot of fun, we have a lot of hard work, this is 6am and the developers just left to go to sleep. We are normally up 24-7, there's usually someone here at all hours, 7 days a week. We all work very hard, this is the start up hours and this is how we are becoming the number one MCN on YouTube. We are actually the fastest growing network in the history of all networks and it's because of you and these guys, the amazing development and design team of the freedom family, we are going to get there together and we're going to grow together. All of you, the networks, the people, the partners working together as a team, tell us how we're doing down there in the comments below, do you like this office? Do you like the tools we are building, like the new heartbeat chrome that lets you see tags, that lets you see views per day and subscribers per day growth for every channel when you're watching any video on that channel. We have a lot of new features coming to the new heartbeat chrome and if you want to get it, click here, this is the video that will explain what heartbeat chrome is, how to get it and I hope you enjoy all the features it offers. This is freedom. Who am I? I am George, founder of freedom and MGM, our multi-gaming network and you've been watching Let's Discover Freedom. Click the first video to learn what is freedom and how it helps you grow. Click the second video to learn about sponsorships for all freedom partners, even if you have just 10 subscribers and click the other videos like how do I leave freedom to learn more. Click Get More Views to learn how to build your audience faster on YouTube. Click Get More CPM to learn how to make more money from your channel and click Get More Music to learn where to get more music to spice up your videos. Click the first playlist to watch The George Show on Freedom, that's my show. Or watch The Anthony Show or The Alex Show also on Freedom. And we will grow together as a family because this is the freedom family. You are part of it, we are all part of it and we're all growing together. So grow with us and partner with freedom. That play now button right there on the video bar is all you need to click to get started.