Who's in big one right now? What do y'all think? Let's look at the weekly the weekly just ended 12,000 we did hit we did go all the way up last 13,920 eventually we got rejected all the way down Right now we're kind of at that same spot. We're last year if we break we can break through 12,200 range I believe that's gonna send us shoot us to at least 13,000. That's basically where we need to go right now Is that like I don't know why but I can't hear the music to get in my headphones So I can't tell I can't tell how the music is. So yeah, so we if we could get if we could break through this 12,200 level 13k is Definitely next and obviously we could break through 13 Then last year's high is next which is 13,900 area between 13,900 to 14k and if we break 14k, then that's when I believe we'll be able to To shoot through to either back to our previous all-time high or to a Or to a all-time high so I think if we break through that the hype on Bitcoin is gonna get a lot of money back in and It's gonna be all over the media again like last time And I think that them because I don't really feel like right now. There's a lot of media hype with Bitcoin It's just been slowly building up last time it was all built up with media hype this this time is a little bit different The fundamentals are way better than last time Everything the whole community has grown overall. So yeah, so so right now we're fighting this battle at 12k If we could break through here 13k is definitely next and Then 14 we could break 14. I think we could hit 20 which is The previous all-time high if we hit 20 I think we're gonna get rejected at 20 a lot of people are gonna be selling because they're scared of what happened last time But I think we'll probably hit 20 dump back down to like 16 15 and then I think that's when the media hype is gonna come in and We can hit new all-time highs for Bitcoin That's what I think could happen Obviously, there's a lot of different views a lot of different, you know perceptions to this So depends how you look at it Let's zoom into the daily chart the daily chart here If you take a close close look It's a bull flag right now.  Let's hit up Ethereum real quick. Let's see what's going on with Ethereum Ethereum has a very similar build look at look at this build right here on Ethereum you see what happened here? You see how it went up. Boom this right here. That's a bull flag Look what happened over here. It broke out and now it's forming another bull flag right there Man, Ethereum's gonna blow up guys. I don't know if you guys remember, but Ethereum was over one thousand dollars in 2017 And it's lagging behind a lot right now From where work if they're in prices compared to where bitcoins prices, so I definitely see a theorem Jumping up to 500 soon. I Am bullish especially with all the the new D5 coins and that whole thing going on right now Everybody's pumped on those coins Like link and all that guys all that is built on Ethereum platform. So if you're If you're bullish on D5 You got to be bullish on Ethereum. Yeah with the whole corona thing. There's a lot of money being printed So crypto a lot of people are going into crypto gold and silver That's why crypto gold and silver is pumping because a lot of money is being printed right now. Let's check out Well, let's see where it's at right now. So so I I picked up I was trying to enter if you guys watched our last stream our last market analysis We tried to enter Ethereum a few times at 400 We kept getting stopped out Then it took off finally though the trade we're trying to take It came back down we were able to catch it at 420 and Ride it up a little bit to 435 Now it's right back down to back to the entry. So 420 is a good entry spot. If you're not in a Ethereum trade I would keep a stop below the daily low Daily low is 412 so you would have if you get in now you'd have about a 10 dollar stop Your targets basically 440 So you have a $10 stop $17 Profit for first target 440 then 450 Those are targets. I'm looking at Let's look at Bitcoin cash right here guys Bitcoin cash you can see it is also in the Bull flag form the pattern is a bull flag. There's something else. That's also lagging behind Bitcoin price We should be able to see I think Bitcoin cash She catch up at least catch up to Ethereum Because it there it's usually Neck and neck with the Ethereum right now is about a hundred dollars behind we should be able to come back to these highs I like the three hundred dollar entry for Bitcoin cash and 280 entry So either three hundred dollar entry to 80 support entry Need some more orange Fanta. All right, let's let's check out XRP.  So last time we checked it out we put this Fibonacci on it Fibonacci retracement we wanted to compare it and see what it looked like See what it did So I think we talked about We're looking at the point three eight two area. It looks like it kind of broke below that But then it came right back up And then it got it looks like it's getting stuck right here at the point two three six area that we have marked So that could definitely be a point of interest But it's been moving slow. I don't know if you guys were here during the last full run for But Ripple was one of those points that moved extremely slow and then just off If you guys can hear the music I cannot hear the music. So if you guys can hear it and cool I definitely do not hear hungry like any trades on term positions I don't have any day trade position positions and date day trade positions are finally moved a little bit But it hasn't really been moving too much We are we're looking at it against paired up with Bitcoin right now So it's been invested again the same thing. We're invested in like point long-term. We're not invested in like point We're not currently doing any day trades on like point. It just hasn't been enough for us We're too offerable Cardano around looks good still It's been correct me for a little bit now. It still looks pretty good. It's still As long as it doesn't keep it's still a bull flag that you can probably have your stop If you enter any type of trade right now, you probably need to stop around 1100 sats section right here Pull up Tezos Look at it against the dollar Yeah, so one thing I've noticed with Tezos is that it's it has been a kind of correlated with with link with chain link So it's it's been kind of following it a little bit If you if you can see here, we also have the the same bull flag pattern here I definitely expect some sort of break at some point soon Let's zoom in a little bit more to really see what's been going on with the price All right, so you saw it corrected here, then it took off a little bit again It looks like up here is where it's been getting trouble. Okay, so the 450 mark $4.50 looks like it's the mark where it's having trouble So that's that seems to be the biggest resistance right now It dropped down to $4 Back up to 450. So what you guys got it got to realize about What's happening right now with these prices? You got to pay attention to the numbers The numbers if you notice there are whole numbers, right? So 450 is The resistance and four dollars is a support Now why would those exact numbers be you know where it's getting rejected and supported? It's psychological. It's all psychological the market Is very very big on whole numbers. So whole numbers always tend to play as resistance and supports It's just a psychological thing. So you always have to keep that in mind when trading anything whenever it's getting close to any of the whole numbers Prepare to for that to be a Resistance or a support So if I was creating this right now if I was looking for an entry I'm definitely looking for an entry at $4. That's where I really want to enter But you know it might not make it there So I'll be looking for another whole number to possibly interact and I look at okay And where else has it kind of bounced? So if I'm looking here You see right here if there was a bounce up right here. There's a bounce up It came back down again It went back up it came back down right here another bounce up and I was kind of coming back down So if I was looking for an entry Look at where look at the numbers that were these bounced It happens to be another whole number for 10 So for 10 is my first entry where I would be putting it at well actually So if you want it depends on on how much risk you want to take Because if you really don't want to miss out 420 could be a possible entry again another whole number So I'd set up I'd set up three entries. I'd set up one entry at 420 one entry at 410 in my final entry at $4 So I it would basically you'd be averaging down Under $4. I wouldn't really like it under $4. I probably Sell under 4 But if you want to hold if it were to go under 4 Then your next the next support is 370 and through F under 370 Then you for sure have to sell because if it drops past 370 it has the possibility of Dropping, you know Possibly the 3.2 $3 there will be some you know supports some minor supports with moving averages and like whole numbers 350 stuff like that, but It's just a scary thing that it could drop all the way to $3. So So yeah, that's up to you guys on that part. It depends on your risk tolerance net girls I mainly trade on bitmex and on by bit Those are two platforms. I mainly use if I'm look if I'm trading with leverage That's what I'm using now for, you know stuff like Tezos and stuff. I'm using Binance You can I use I have Binance. I have Coinbase Gemini bitrex I have Q coin. I have so many platforms that I use So it just depends what coin I'm trading and if I'm looking to trade with leverage or without leverage You guys want to check out Let's take a look at Chainlink. I know Chainlink is very popular nowadays Zoom out a bit. Let's start at the weekly Look at this. Um, if for a new trader It depends first first is the first thing it depends is on location where you located because depending what country you're in it Changes what? Platforms you can use. So for example, I am in the US So there's some action. I'm actually pretty limited on what? Platforms I can use since I'm in the US But there are ways around it if the platform doesn't have KYC. So you have to be careful with that But if you're brand new Binance is a pretty simple one to use so you can check that out if you have I know a lot of a lot of US people are in Use Coinbase to buy bitcoin and it's easy to just go from Coinbase to Coinbase pro, which is there They're a small like platform Um to trade so it just depends man um, so Chainlink is a beauty so far, but it's up so much that it's a it's a little scary for me It's a trade. I don't like jumping on I am invested again long-term on Chainlink, but When people are asking for new entries like it's it's tough dude It's tough to give a new entry when it's gone up this much this fast.  Let's zoom in a bit more and see see what's really been going on here All right, so if you notice Look at this pattern that's been going on It's been up consolidation Consolidation up consolidation So, you know, you would think up, right? So this is bull flag bull flag bull flag bull flag Um, so the probability is that it's going to go up the breakout entry is over 20 dollars So 20 dollars and remember what we just spoke about psychological resistance 20 dollars is another one of those Um, so it has to break 20 to continue going up If it does not break 20 it looks like it's been dropping down to about the 1850 mark To to between the 19 dollars at 1850 Um, so if I was buying if I'm buying I'm looking to buy only breakouts Right now where it is. Um, I I don't want to buy any support entries on this. I just I don't like it because it's gone up so much. I don't want to buy any support entries I'm only buying breakout entries here. So I would have a stop order set above 20 dollars As soon as it goes above 20 dollars, it would trigger and that'll and uh, my orders would Execute so that is what I would do if I'm looking for entry On chain link. I wouldn't enter at its current price because it's you're just up in the air right now It could go either way. There's uh, you have no edge um yeah so Anyone looking for new positions and chain link I suggest either setting up an order or set up alerts as soon as it breaks 20 That's when you want to buy It could it could move fast. You need to have your orders ready if it drops Under this uh, 1850 mark then we can we can see a drop to possibly 17 dollars for 1650 those are the next support levels for Chain link let's check out neil man. I had I actually haven't looked at neil in a while I had man. I traded neil Many many moons ago before it was ever called neil When I traded neil, it wasn't called neil I don't know how many of you guys were wrong at that time See what's going on with neil I like to I started at the monthly just to get an idea of what it's been doing Look, I still have this charted from The last one of the last times I traded it So it seems like I have put a resistance here at 1570 and look it's still like Kind of been there But it actually looks like it broke out through that resistance right now What's this high right here at this high 1674? Right now we're at 16 dollars So neil has been looking very very nice for the past few months Since after the covid Look at the daily And neil has been looking crazy man. Look it dropped all the way to five dollars through it dropped to four dollars That's crazy Yeah, I'll take a look at zeal Uh, so let's see it went all it went all the way up down Then I went up What's this level here 13 dollars looks like it's a level that it kept getting issues with and it broke through 13 As soon as it broke through 13 It took off now it's this level Let's zoom in a bit more See if we could understand really understand what's going on Looks like it's riding this moving average This one is uh 50 day So it's riding the 50 day moving average here It's been just kind of riding it here It goes up going back down to 50 Right now it's like a little mini bull flag I should kind of breaking out the bull flags actually what's been happening right here So it's uh, it's a pretty good buy I am invested in neil long term. I have not day traded it in a while but uh But I am going to keep an eye on this because I'm starting to like the chart now The next major resistance is definitely going to be like, um Another whole number probably let's see let me zoom out a bit What's up here 16 70 something so that'll probably be a resistance and up here There's a 20 dollar mark So 20 dollars gonna be its biggest resistance on its way up if it breaks that 20 mark Then we can be going back up Man neil was a very expensive coin at one point in time Figure look at where it's come Oh, okay. I see what I did here Yeah, so this break is actually pretty bullish This is a break Of a pretty big resistance right here. So 20 dollars that next real big area X Take a look at it So I'll see like the issue with these coins, man. There's not enough history So when there's not enough history for it from a technical aspect, uh, it's hard to trade Neck rows appreciate the follow bud. It's um It's hard to trade when um When there's when there's not that much history in it So the only the only uh information I have from a technical aspect Is this right here? Where it was like a rejection and it's having same issues here. So The same area right here is giving it the same issues here. We got rejected last time And it looks it looks like it's been it got rejected again So, I mean, that's all I could really say about that. There's not really too much Else going on with it that I can tell you about from a technical aspect It's not enough not enough data for me to really analyze it. All right, let's look at Zill Zillica Zill is another coin that I am also invested in long term. I've had it for a while Last few months has been bullish That's what one two three four five months in a row Of green break when you go down to the weekly You see it's been pretty good overall It actually looks like a cup and handle pattern here So on the weekly it's kind of like a Cup and handle type of pattern that's usually bullish and if you go Down to the daily chart it also looks Like a cup And like it's about to form the handle and then it also If you just look at this area This is a bull flag right here so It has several different patterns telling me that um that it's definitely Gonna go up Based off the patterns. So we have the cup And handle so it basically needs to break out around this area. What are we looking at dollar usc? uh, so two cents Well, the three this three cent area problem Yeah, so around the three cent area point zero to eight Above point zero to eight if it breaks out we can see three cents even breaks out of three cents It can take off it go for a ride So they have the patterns techniques technical wise it's uh, it's bullish bullish on it We got a cup and handle on the weekly We have another possible cup and handle on the daily And on daily we also have the bull flag form in there And if we go down to the four hour We also have that bull flag Just looks really messy though I don't know why it looks all crazy like this But yeah, I am Bullish on it. I like it. I like the chart I like the chart guys Guys make sure to follow the channel Also another thing make sure to follow our youtube page guys Let me see You go to youtube.com, right? Go to bitcoin Daily Just scroll down boom right here bitcoin daily Click on it hit the subscribe Turn on the notification bell We're at uh 1500 subscribers right now We've been putting out videos We started again at add on on uh last week putting up videos We've put up a bunch of stuff already We put up a market analysis last week We put up a bitmex tutorial how to use stop losses Uh and stop orders overall It is a great tutorial if you if you're looking to use bitmex We did another market analysis for last week Um This one right here this this video these two videos are very very very very vital videos I think uh people don't understand How important it is to use proper risk management But this is all about risk management these two videos um If you're looking to be a trader and you're looking to be successful and profitable and stay in this business long term These videos I suggest you Watching bookmarking rewatching taking notes on them Very very important guys These two videos right here can Change your life If you follow the rules And look how crazy it is that everybody watches these videos when will bitcoin hit 20k like that's what people are You know are clicking on because that's what they want to see but Then when like I make videos on okay how to trade and actually be able to make money Like uh people don't really want to watch those videos or they don't get that many views. It's crazy, man Everybody just wants to get rich quick That's not how it works guys unfortunately Alrighty guys, I appreciate you guys hanging out in the chat man. You guys have been great Again, make sure to follow hit the follow button. We appreciate it Subscribe to our youtube channel Well, we will deeply appreciate that too. We are Trying to get the 10k Before the end of the year. I think we can do more on that, but let's just start with one goal Um Yeah, man We'll have we'll have a highlight video of This current stream if you missed any part of it up tomorrow on our youtube page So make sure to subscribe a lot of information. We're gonna be putting up Any other questions leave us a comment And we'll be back here in a couple days. We'll figure out the next day.  Peace


Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Friday, April 3rd, and we are continuing our consideration of S3. And this morning we'll be working with legislative council. We don't have any witnesses scheduled. And we're looking at draft 4.1 of S3, which is also on our committee page under legislative council Eric Fitzpatrick's name for today. For those of you who are watching on YouTube. And 4.1 represents a combination of the recommendations from the other committees that have have taken testimony and to read to this bill, as well as we as a committee have looked at and talked about thus far, although we have not taken any formal votes or straw poll votes on those those sections, but they primarily represent what we've heard consensus on from our witnesses. So with that, welcome and thank you Eric.  There are very few changes between this draft and the previous draft so I'm going to move pretty quickly. I think it's all going to be pretty familiar to folks, but I can refresh your recollection briefly as to what's in the bill. Starting right away with version number 4.1 again the highlights show actually you got two different color highlights. The yellow highlights are showing the changes between the bill as passed by the Senate and what the this committee has so far got in there as changes. The blue highlights show changes that have been made between the previous draft and this draft. So, as you'll see there's very few of those because there have been very few changes. Other than the fact that section six which is the forensic care work group does not have any very few highlights because it's really, you can't do a highlight to show the changes in that section it's completely rewritten. It's just the new language from the House Healthcare Committee draft that the committee had looked at last week that's now been inserted in there. But don't, don't be, don't be distracted by the fact that there's very few highlights. It's in there because that doesn't mean there haven't been any changes. It just means it's a whole rewrite so couldn't really do it that way. So, having said that let's start from the beginning section one has to do with the initial psychiatric examination or in some cases examination by a psychologist. That's required when a criminal defendant raises the issue of competency to stand trial or sanity at the time of the offense. So, quickly moving through, you'll see where some of the yellow highlights are we went through this last time this language clarifies that sometimes the exam is done by a psychiatrist sometimes by a psychologist, depending on whether it's an examination of the person's developmental disability in which cases would be a psychologist, otherwise a psychiatrist. When that exam is done the report. The summary of the report is provided to you'll see additions here to the respondent that's criminal defendant, as well as Dale because they are involved in these developmental disability cases. Subdivision to there is the one that the committee has been discussing no changes proposed as of yet although we may get to this after this general walkthrough as to possible changes to this subdivision. So, the sequence issue in those cases where the psychologist and psychiatrist, sorry, the psychiatrist and potentially the psychologist are asked to provide opinions on both competency and sanity. This section specifies that they're going to be done in separate reports, so that they're not combined into one report because as we talked about these are separate issues. They're not the same thing so it makes sense for them to be conducted the examination to be conducted separately. And it also specifies that the sanity examination is only done. And if the person is first found competent to stand trial, and the idea being that person would never be able to raise a sanity defense that they weren't first found competent to stand trial because standing fence is only raised at trial. So, or beforehand but with the understanding that the person's going to try so person has to be competent for that to come into play and that's why that sequence is proposed there and there's the new language added that to not to address the issue of potential loss of evidence or memories not being as good later on, if the sanity examination isn't conducted to further down the road say for example the defendant regains competency five years later.  So that later on years down the road if they have to provide a sanity report at that time they would still have that evidence there they wouldn't have to go back and find it. Starting from scratch. So that section one section to has to do with the hearing remember after it if the person is found either incompetent stand trial or insane at the time the offense there's a hearing that's held to determine whether or not the person is a danger to themselves or others and if they are they would be committed to custody of either DMH or Dale, this language and so be there clarifies that a copy of the report. Sorry, that that the person's entitled to have counsel at that hearing from legal aid, and that both DMH and Dale are able to appear at the hearing and call witnesses. Section three is the victim notification piece. Remember this is at after the person has been committed to DMH. So you're further down the timeline is the person replies to a person who's already been committed. Before they're at least 10 days before their status has changed rather in DMH custody when I say their status has changed I mean, for example they before they would either be discharged from DMH custody, or have their treatment level stepped down from hospitalization to the non hospitalization or before their commitment order expires if any one of those things happens, or is about to happen 10 days from now. Then the department has to notify the state's attorney or the attorney general whoever prosecuted the case, and then the essay or the AG has to provide notice to the victim. The same procedure would apply if the, if the person elopes from DMH custody which essentially means escapes, please. In that situation also notice would be required for the essay and the AG who would then in turn have to provide notice to the victim. As you can see the struct provision there has to do with that separate notice provision that is now been moved into the forensic care work group and that's the, the different situation in which a person on an order of non hospitalization and the community isn't complying with their order or, or the alternative treatment isn't working. That's that whole concept of, as the bill came over from the Senate, in that situation, there would also be notice required to the essay and the AG. The main here is to move that out of the statutory requirement piece and put it in the forensic care working group so that they can study, you know what should be done in that situation, what circumstances should trigger the notice and what should the essay or AG do with the notice once they get. So that issue will be looked at in the by the working group. Section four is the disclosure to the prosecution of the, or sorry actually the examination by the prosecution the prosecution. Currently under current law can ask the court for an order that the defendant submit to a psychiatric examination. This is where the defendant is raising a standard defense, this provision expands that to a competency proceeding so when defendants, when the defendant's competency is at issue. In a criminal case, this allows the prosecution to also ask the court for a psychiatric examination of the defendant, after the independent psychiatric examination has been done. So now we're moving on to the reports and studies provision of the, of the amendment, and you'll see remember these are the two sections that the Department of Committee on Healthcare looked at and this committee review those changes proposed by the Department of Committee on Healthcare asked me to put those sections into this bill so that's where we are now we're still working from a House Judiciary Committee strike on them and put those sections from the House Healthcare amendment have been moved into this version. The first one is the assessment of mental health services that Department of Corrections is contracting with to provide for a person under deals persons under DOC supervision and this requires DOC and the Department of Mental Health to do an inventory and evaluation of those mental health services that are provided by the entity for whom with whom they contract. The language is, is it exactly the same as what the committee looked at last week Katie walked the committee through the language. You'll see in this case. I was able to use yellow highlights to show what the changes are between what came over from the Senate, and what is being proposed here because it, although there were quite a few changes the way it was set up structurally, it lent itself to being able to see what the new provisions are so you can see that as it came over from the Senate and subsection C subdivision one, you know that the substance of the evaluation included that first part comparison as to how the type frequency and timeliness of mental health services provided in the correct setting, different from those that are available in the community, but then this, these other pieces that are in yellow were highlighted. I sorry, we're added by health care committee and agreed to by this committee so all those other pieces are new Katie walk you through them last week I'm not going to go through them all line by line but it's just more substantive work that the, that the departments would have to do for purposes of this inventory and evaluation the assessments and comparisons of the mental health services that sort of thing, you will see to go down the subsection D now this is highlighted in blue. You should see that in blue on your document now that's because this is something that this committee, after having reviewed the health care committee's proposals, wanted to add. And it's the same concept is added in two places but this is just an overarching requirement for for the, the evaluation that's being done by the departments of corrections and mental health under the section for purposes of that entire evaluation, this language applies and that says in conducting the required to the work required by this section, which is the evaluation we just talked about the OC and DMH shall ensure that social and racial equity issues are considered, including issues related to transgender and gender non conforming persons. So that's sort of a broad requirement that applies throughout the work that's required by that section for a value to their mental health services. So, moving on to section six, the, you'll see a couple of changes that are in blue here as well this is what the committee talked about, after having reviewed the healthcare committee's proposal. So this language is essentially the healthcare committee's proposal and the first part actually the first subsection I should say the chains were pretty minor so I was able to use some you know highlighting just to show what they were about the senate version and your document so really just some some language at the beginning but a couple of key points. So this committee is added to the forensic care working group representative from Dale that subdivision to the Department of Building General Services was in the senate version but was struck by the house healthcare attorney discussion of that during Katie's walkthrough so I'm not sure if that was a conscious decision or an oversight. Maybe something that we'd want to follow up on I just figured I'd know that I really don't know I haven't haven't asked Katie yet. But I just figured I pointed out because it was in the senate version and was not in health care the healthcare committee's amendment. Yeah. I'm sorry. Is it okay if I ask Erica question about that before we move on. Did this. Do you remember why the senate put buildings. Why, why the senate had them in there. Because they were, they figured it was a facilities, you know that's the related to facilities question. I think that was it. Yeah, I agree and I think because healthcare. I think it's about, you know, about assuming like there's an assumption that we are going to have a new facility that that sort of came came through in the senate or that was an interpretation of that came through in the senate version. I, I guess that's why it was taken out here but but I made a note to follow up as well. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for jumping in. And also right below that you see this committee also added the added the chief superior judge that was at at judge reasons request he also thought he should be on this work group as well. So last time increased the number of actually I think this was a health care point camera that the increase in the number of crime crime victims representatives sorry, and individuals with lived experience of mental illness. So in the case of crime victims representatives from two to three, and, and then for in the case of individuals with lived experience from one to three so you see those numbers are bumped up a little bit in subdivisions 11 and 14. And the plastic is something I think chair grad that you mentioned last time to add a representative from the front from on developmental disabilities council so they're in there as well. Yeah, Tom has his hand up. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, just mentioning these crime victims kind of triggered something, say if somebody. Something happens, and, and somebody is found. And so there's, in a sense there's no crime. If somebody is found that they're not competent or the sanity, sanity issues. So, but there is still a victim. So it is somebody still eligible or is there still help for them, even though there's not a crime committed. The definition of victim and the victim statutes is broad and as brought oftentimes written broadly. So that, for example, you know, sometimes the charges might get dropped, right, or or that there might be facts that would not lead to a criminal conviction but nevertheless, as a person could still qualify for a victim if they suffered a loss as a result of the defendant's action so yeah that it is broad enough to include that. Great thank you. Yeah. So moving on to the balance of the working group, you'll see that's from there on in there's no highlights but it's entirely that's just because that's entirely the house health care committees language that Katie walked you through last time and again there's a different structure of sort of phases of reporting you remember they're going to the forensic care working group first does a preliminary report to this committee and corrections and institutions committees health care committees. Honor before February 1 of 2022 so that's the first stage of the report. And at that point they sort of identify. Basically the issues the gaps in the current structure opportunities to, to improve the structure as well as competency restoration models. And it's at that point, I think the sort of one of the main differences between the bill that passed the Senate and the bill that, or the version that you're looking at now is that they're sort of set up so there's not yet a predetermined conclusion that a forensic facility would necessarily be required. So the issue is that this is being considered at this stage of the game. It may be that that's an advisable step but it may not be. And this initial report would start the ball rolling of considering whether or not that's, that's a good policy. And if you move on down to page 13 it's based on the recommendations in that preliminary report. The department then submits a second preliminary report to the Joint Justice Oversight Committee by July 1 of that year, as to whether or not a forensic facility forensic treatment facility is needed. So it's separated out those two things so that the initial analysis of the issues isn't sort of based on a preordained conclusion that a facility is the right approach. And then second stage of that is, as I said, that would be by February of 2022 then by July of 2022 months later, that's when the departments would make a recommendation to Justice Oversight about whether or not that's the right move. And it's phrased I think that way intentionally that's on line nine page 13, whether or not a forensic treatment facility is needed. I think it's phrased in that way it's phrased neutrally. So it's not suggesting that one conclusion is the right conclusion. So it's up to them to make whichever recommendation they feel is the right policy at that time. So then, honor before January 1 of the following year 2023 that's when the final report is due to the committees of jurisdiction this committee, HCI health care, etc. That finalizes these recommendations, including addressing the size scope of fiscal impact of any forensic treatment facility if one is recommended so they don't take that step of addressing, you know, the details of the facility which were kind of in the, in the initial part of the step as the vote came from the Senate saves this till till later on it's dependent upon there being a recommendation that the treatment is needed in the first place sorry that the facility is needed in the first place. And that's pretty much sums it up you'll see oh sorry I'm page 14 lines 13 to 14, adding a little language again, this committee had talked about last time regarding. This is an overarching direction to the forensic care working group doesn't just apply in part of their work it actually applies throughout their work you say you see in line 10 and conducting the work where the work required by the section so it applies broadly to all their tasks that they are charged with completing by this section. They have to ensure and submission a that social and racial equity issues are considered, including issues related to transgender and gender non conforming persons so that doesn't apply to any one particular piece of the forensic care working groups. Mission implies throughout. I think that was something that committee want to make sure. Thank you I see Barbara's hand is up so excuse me Eric. Sure. Thank you. Keep getting the habit of lowering my hand right away okay so Eric. I know that it talks about gaps and needs for treatment, but it sounds like treatment facility gets its own billing and sort of a higher. Elevation then filling in the gaps for other treatment services. Am I interpreting that incorrectly. I didn't read it that way. Okay, to me, to me it reads as one option among many others including community treatment and various others but that's really sort of. I admit that I think that's in the eyes of the beholder to some extent. Okay. Okay, because I wondered if one of the gaps that comes up is like supervised housing or something that's that is. Short of like an inpatient treatment residential option. But we don't need to spell that out I mean it doesn't really say that it just, it talks generically about everything else. That's the way I read it yes. Okay. Thank you. Sure. And Eric, I have a question in there in here somewhere is there a statement that that the working group can have subcommittees. I was looking for is there something like that or and if not, do we need to have that because I, there are a lot of people is a big group. I don't think that it's in there and I also I don't, it's not that you can't put it in I don't think it's necessary. I don't think, I don't think they are prohibited from having them but you certainly there's nothing wrong with spelling it out if you'd prefer to I think it's, it's either it's really your choice but I don't think the, the way it's written precludes them from establishing subcommittees if they think that would be helpful. Okay, great thank you well let's. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you then for now. That's fine. Thank you. Sure. Pretty much brings us to the end. There's the appropriation of $25,000 for for the work. At the very end that it's also an addition from that. Senate version. You also so in section seven is new in its entirety this year members the expansion of the. The, it adds the, one more member appointed at large by the Senate and as well the chair of the House Committee on Healthcare. So expands that membership. Sorry, sorry, sorry, excuse me. Ken has his hand up. Go ahead Ken. Oh, sorry. Can't hear you can. Sorry, thank you. Has it already been determined that we need a. I can't pronounce the right for as neck. Facility. Has it that been talked about in detail. It's been talked about, but I don't think there's consensus on it. I would think that would be really, really important. With everything that we're dealing with on this bill and everything and going back and forth. I would think it will be. Not even an issue that we need that. We need to have a. A, you know, being looked at and spending money for that. And I assume Eric, Eric, you probably can't answer this, but I assume there's no COVID money for that to help or anything like that. And I don't know who I would ask that to. Yeah, I don't know the answer. Sorry represent Boston. It might be something for someone in JFO probably be able to. Give you more information on that as to whether or not some of the COVID funds could be used for that purpose. Okay, thanks. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah, thank you, Eric. I agree that certainly has been talked about in this. This draft from the, especially the healthcare committee does, does give the opportunity to continue that discussion. So it's not ruling it out, but it's not making that assumption and that was something that was important to, to that committee, but it's, it is referenced in there. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Sure. So, so thank you so much so that any questions. Otherwise, in terms of that particular draft. Okay, not seeing any. Okay, great. So then, trying to think Martin actually turn it over to you and then Eric can chime in if there are, if there's other language we should be looking at but please refer us to the section that you've been working on and what the committee and others can be looking at. Sure. The section is on the latest draft 4.1 it's not in there but just to orient you it's on page two at subsection two, but it I separately under my name is the proposed amendment. I can kind of walk through as far as why, why this proposal. It does. It tries to do well first of all let me let everybody get to that first. Just not if you're seeing the very colorful multicolored amendment blue and yellow. We good. Yeah, it should be under my name. You may have to refresh.  Because Evan added it not that long ago. So there's a that's trying to do three things and what actually one of them we've already seen. First, it's trying the first point and I'll turn to Kate to see if it actually addresses what what she brought up is to it isn't in case the these two exams are going to be conducted by two individuals. I think is what I'm trying to capture there. You know if the court orders examinations of both of both of these examinations. I'm trying to make it more more general. I'll let Kate way in if, if, if I captured what you were after or not you don't have to weigh in right now but so that's that's the first the second we already looked at and that is preserving evidence and that's what's in yellow. And we've already had Eric has talked about that we've talked about that a little, a little bit and I think we've had folks weigh in and I think they're generally fine with that part of it from what I understand. So, and then the third part has to do with some input that we've been receiving as far as making sure that the respondent, you know that we are trying to respect their wishes we're trying to respect the agency of the respondent or the respondent and being able to actually ask for both of these examinations to be occurring concurrently. And I took this from, though I didn't quite put it in right or correctly I should say from the American Bar Association criminal justice standards on mental health, which the language can be found, among other places in the letter we read from Will DeWight on April 15, 2021. That that provided some of the guidance but I put in an extra, an extra step of saying, well first let me read it says notwithstanding subdivision a of this of the subdivision. If it's found to the individuals found to be incompetent to stand trial the the subsection to a says don't do the sanity examination, although preserve the evidence but this is saying well notwithstanding that the court may order upon motion of the defendant and language that I still have a question about is I added and for good cause shown that the examination of the person's competency to stand trial and the person sanity at the time of the alleged defense occur concurrently. I have further language that based on some input, as far as protecting the defendant at that stage in the, in the proceeding from self incrimination, making it clear that if the defendant request that those examinations to occur concurrently. Only the defendant at that time would receive the sanity examination opinion or results. At least until the person is found competent to stand trial. So, the question I had the what I added was and for good cause shown. Well, first of all, I, we sent Evan sent this out to what we thought were really the relevant individuals to weigh in on this. We may still from input that we received from Jack McCullough, probably want to run it by the defender generals. I would think Maxine defer to you on that. And actually judge Greerson. Okay, and judge Greerson. Because we are. Yeah, the court may order anyway, yeah. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. So, but the responses, I believe Evan has posted those so you can see them yourself but essentially the response was favorable for this except not liking the and for good cause shown and and I think Jack McCullough and the white and and Donahue, all, I think, expressed why they didn't like that and it makes sense to me it's not a standard we need in there. The, so I've struck it in the provision or that you are seeing now, there is one question that I would have for everybody and that is, if we want to be closer to matching what the American Bar Association criminal justice standards on mental health applied, instead of striking and for good cause shown, we would change the and to an or because the language of the American Bar Association is that the examination should not occur at the same time, unless the defendant so requests, or for good cause shown the court so orders. I'm, I'm fine not putting in or for good cause shown and just leaving it simply to the request of the defendant, I think that gives the most deference to the defend what the defendants wishes are in this situation. So I'm inclined to just leave it as I have here and striking and for good cause shown because I think even adding or good cause shown adds some uncertainty as far as what we're talking about what does that mean. I think it's pretty clear what it means if the defendant request for it. You know the court still needs to order it that that's that's something that has to happen. But that that's, that's kind of where I am but I just wanted to flag that for individuals and, you know, for discussion. Thank you. Thank you Martin for taking the lead on this and thank you, Kate for bringing us here in part. Yeah, I think in terms of whether it's and or or for good cause shown. Given that Representative Donahue and others did not like the and for good cause shown I'm not sure that or would be any more palatable. So we open it up to. So Kate, go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, first I just wanted to express my gratitude to the committee and Martin and Eric. I've had this issue up multiple times and it may seem small, but I appreciate the patience with me and the willingness to incorporate different language for that first section that was changed. I think looks great to me if others are comfortable with it I just feel like it's more clarifying in my mind. And I like all the rest of the language I support striking and for good cause shown I also personally kind of feel like the language that was added in terms of providing that the psychiatrist and the applicable the psychologist shall collect and preserve any evidence necessary to form an opinion that's a sanity. If the person regains competence in my mind sort of maybe addresses that issue. Like, like that information will already be gathered based on that statute that we're talking about putting forward so that helps me feel comfortable striking that section. So yeah, I'm in support of the language and I appreciate the time taken on this. Okay, thank you, Tom. Thank you. Yeah, one of the things that I was going to, going to say is I wanted to hear from Kate but I think we both put our hand up at the, but the same time so. Yeah, I'm supportive of the new language and also of striking the, the and for good cause shown the concern people that that took a look at it I think if they thought, or was a good idea. You know just looking at the, you know, thinking of the experience of the people that were that were looking at this. I think if they thought or was a good idea they would have, they would have put it in but. So I would support taking that out and and again support the new language. Let's see. Bob. Sorry. Yes. Martin under. BBB report on the person's sanity shall not be made available to the prosecutor to the person's found competent to stay in trial. Why would the report be available to anybody if in fact, the person's not competent to stay in trial. So it would, it would, the way that I think subsection B and Eric and weigh in on this as well is set up is that you know the defendant will will have access to that the defendant will receive that but until competency is established. It doesn't go to the prosecutor. So nobody else really gets it except for the defendant and I think the way that this is supposed to be set up. Because it doesn't say that now does it just says it won't be a bit made available to the prosecutor which is fine. I would just wonder why I mean if the individual chooses I guess at some point. I guess I could ask Eric if we should, you know, a different way of putting that is that the report shall only be provided to the defendant, or the respondent, I guess is the proper word language. I think as far as I thought it was clear just from the whole provision overall that it would, you know, if the defendant is requesting it would go to the defendant but maybe it would be clear if instead of saying we're not going to provide to the prosecutor will say that we're going to provide only to the defendant. So we'll have that and also say and shall not be made available to the prosecutor. So it could be the report on the person Sandy shall be made available to the shall be provided to the respondent or defendant whichever word, and shall not be made available to the prosecutor until the person is found competent to stand trial. I mean, we have that. Reach better. Yeah. I mean, as far as how if that's necessary or I think that if you say it's only provided to the defendant, then it's not necessary to say that it doesn't go to the prosecutor to probably want to see it. Well except for the competence part I mean the idea I mean you're right. You're not mentioning competence. You know, saying the report on the person sanity shall only shall only be provided to the defendant. You're not mentioning competence. Right. Right. Something along those lines. Right. That's the idea though. Thank you. Thank you Bob for pointing that out. Okay. Barbara. Thanks. So I, I'm Martin. And Kate, very grateful for all the work I feel like this build is getting better by the day. The, or is something that I don't support either unless it's like. I mean, if it were for a good reason rather than or a good reason, because if it's or a good reason that someone else is raising it, it might not be so good for the defendant just mentally to have to go through that. And I would be in favor of taking it out. Okay. So I would I would think if we could just finesse that language if Eric could finesse that language a bit as far as, you know, the report on the person say shall be provided only to the defendant or respond it, and shall not be made available to the prosecutor until the person's phone competent to stand trial. And if we could strike the and for good cause shown, and then we can get it out to the defender and to the judge Greerson, does that sound like a game plan. Yeah, and actually the same, the people that that we already sent it out to because there are are some changes. And yeah, and see what see what they say and then I think depending upon what how folks respond. At that point I think we'll have a better idea of if we actually need them to come in and give testimony, or if we can just go on their written responses. And certainly if somebody has a strong issue or something it would be good to, to have them actually come in and so we could hear from them. So, what I'm thinking. Bob is your hand up from before do you have another just just quickly going back to what Eric said and versus what Martin just added to it here. That gave us the impression that the report of the person's sanity shall only be shall be made available up to the respond and or defendant that would pretty much cover everything else but Martin went on to add. He's not add that in there along with and shall not be made available to the prosecutor. Well, it's, it's however Eric wants to put the language but I think that's the concept the concept. It's available only to the defendant until the competency is is established. And I will leave the language wordsmithing to Eric. Unless you have a question is that makes, are you. Am I clear are we clear on that Eric. I think so I think it's one of those situations that we often encounter where language may not be technically necessary but you may want to have it for your comfort level. So, it's really, it's really I'm going to kind of put the ball back in your court, because I don't think it I don't think it's so legally necessary to say, and shall not be available to the prosecutor, but you may want it anyway, because maybe you, you feel like it sort of enhances your comfort level with the clarity. So, either way is fine, whichever. Yeah, so it would say you know, shall. You know, shall be made available only to the defendant, and then you could then include or not include the words and not be made available to the prosecutor. Well, yeah, and it's the key part of it is that until person's phone competent that that's that would follow either one yet. Right, right. I'd like to, I'd like to be clear. I'm for the extra words and clarity in this particular instance. It works that works for me. Okay, great. Thank you, coach. Thank you. And also, Kate, and Martin and Eric. Thanks for getting us to this point. What I, what I hear from the conversation, you know, is what we heard from testimony in a number of different bills around interpretation and the judicial interpretation. In cases that people used as illustrating how the different ways that the judges would approach a particular topic. Having as much clarity as possible in the statute leaves less room for interpretation that could be different than our intent, the legislative intent. So as long as we're not complicating a possible decision, it seems to me anytime that we can make a clearer statement. So there is no question about where our intentions were, we're better off. And this seems to do that, or at least that's what I'm sensing. Yeah, and thanks for your point, Bob, because, you know, that helped, you know, as well. But just just felt they needed to, you know, put that out there. Thank you. Thank you, coach. Good. Good point. I agree. Okay, good. Well, that I do think that this bill is coming together. Appreciate everybody's work on it. So, all right. We do have it scheduled at some point next week. So we'll, we'll keep working on it. Before we adjourn, I'm going to quickly update committee members. So this afternoon we are taking up S 99, which actually was just referred to us. We're going to hear some very compelling difficult testimony we have victim survivors coming to speak to us.  And I, we just learned as we all did that we have a token session on Monday and so I've been trying to set things up with counsel so that we can decide whether or not to concur with the Senate's work on our on our bills so I'm not I have to think through again if that impacts our timing. I know on Tuesday we do have bring for use of force bill h 128 panic defense which I'm hoping that will concur. I don't think anything has changed and Selena can help with that. I believe h 199 Eric worked on that was the real estate bill right I think they just concurred with us they didn't make any changes. Yes that's correct. So that one is okay. So anyway so let me let me I also depends upon when these other bills come over from the Senate and that as of yesterday afternoon that wasn't known so I'll look at that but if we have to postpone for a day in order to determine whether or not to concur. We can or I'll get creative or something but to make sure that we all have the information that we need to to concur but I again I think the recommendations on 145 h 145 and h 128 will be to h 18, which is the sexual exploitation bill that that Tom took the lead on, I think in terms of the Senate changes to h 18 I think those sound seem to be fine, but they did put on another bill. It is the bill on human trafficking that this committee looked at before. However, we will be taking testimony on that and Selena has been taking the lead on that because not all of us are here when we did that before so we will take some testimony. And again I'm hoping that we will be able to concur with with that. Maxine with those two being combined. Well, will they need to be reported again on the floor. On any level or Yes, so. Yes. Yeah. So, so whoever reports it and it can be more than one member so for instance Tom you might report the h 18 part of it. You know the original h 18 saying that we concur with that portion of it, and why, and then you might want to refer to somebody else on the other or or report it whatever but Yeah, that's what was going through my mind. Yeah, if we had to report it again and I assume that when we do the the walkthroughs or take another look at it that Michelle will be be with us. Absolutely. Yeah, I think we're doing that on Wednesday. Okay, great. So it. So it may actually be that we're concurring with the Senate. But because that second portion is a Senate bill, they'll have to be some reporting on that. Right. Right. The good Samaritan piece and Ms. Lee has been working on our witnesses for that, which I appreciate. So anything else before we, before we turn for lunch. Did we, did we do the good Samaritan earlier this year, or was that last year. It was last year. Yeah, it all runs together doesn't it. Right. It was, yeah, it was last year and then it actually had a report on it. But the report is not part of part of our consideration. It's just a good Samaritan piece. Okay. And we did do it last year. Yeah, we had a strong vote on that audit committee didn't we. Right. So I'm sorry I'm getting mixed up. So, okay, we did do it last year, but, but the we that are this committee. Right. No, no, no last year. We had a strong vote on that committee, which is right. Sorry, isn't a totally different committee, but is a totally different committee. Let somebody listening figure that one out. Right. But last year's committee had a strong vote if I remember right. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. It was, it was. Yeah, absolutely. It was unanimous. Yeah. Committee and it was, it was. Maybe not quite unanimous, but maybe unit and was like nearly unanimous. Heading over to the Senate, we could go back and look at that vote, but it was, was a super strong vote. Thank you. Okay. I assume we'll be going over any changes that the Senate made or, or. I don't think they made any Michelle, the email I saw Maxine probably. Okay. The email I saw from Michelle, so they adopted exactly the language. Okay, so it'll be a review last year. So it's really tracks like exactly. I don't actually know if they included the study. I'll go back and figure. Right. It's just the immunity of provision. Yeah, that's what I understood. Yeah. I think that tracks exactly to what we passed. Oh, that's great. That's great. Yeah. I think, I think it is great. And I think if there was any opposition on the floor last time, it was because of the study. Well, and no was. Well, was the reporter. So you probably remember. Better than I like what. The floor support was like. Yeah. And I think there was, there was some on the floor. There was some concern. About the good Samaritan portion just because, you know, people are coming up with. Maybe plausible scenarios, maybe implausible scenarios on what we could let someone get away with because they reported or. Was someone going to report just to get out of a. Crime sort of thing. But those were pretty minor. Yeah. On the floor, the vast majority of the pushback and interrogation was in regards to the study group. Yep. Exactly. Right. Right. Thank you, Will. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, you know, so, okay. Yeah. And again, if anybody hears of things moving. Also just, you know, just please let me know, because it's, it is hard to keep track of it all. So anyway. Okay. Great. We will.


This video will talk about the basics of polynomials. You need to know a few things about polynomials. See if we can fill in this table and learn a few things. So we want to know the type of polynomial. Well, it depends on how many terms we have. This particular one has four terms, so I'm going to put that in my number of terms over here. And if it's anything greater than three, we just call it a polynomial. So I'm just going to put poly in here. It has four terms. And then we want to talk about like terms. Well, in like terms, we have to have exactly the same variable and exponent on the variable. So I have three terms here that have x's in them, but none of them have the same exponent, so I don't have any like terms in this particular polynomial. Now, the degree of the polynomial. Degree of the polynomial is the largest exponent, or if we have more than one variable, the largest sum of the exponents on a term. So this one would be four, two, one, and be zero. I have four is my largest degree. Degree of the polynomial is four. And then the leading coefficient is just the coefficient on the term that had the largest exponent. In our case, we would say that the leading coefficient is three. And then in this one, I want to just see if it's simplified, but there are no like terms, so it can't be simplified. So it's done. All right, for our second one. Now we have three terms. And when you have three terms, that's what we call a trinomial. And that has three terms. And in this case, we do have some like terms because there's an x term here and there's also an x term here. So if I lift those like terms, I have three x, and I also have negative nine x. The degree of my polynomial is going to, again, be the largest exponent, and that happens to be two. So that's the degree of my polynomial. And then the coefficient on that term is my leading coefficient, and that's a positive two. And I can simplify this one. Two x squared stays because it has nothing like it, but I can take three x and subtract nine x, combine these two terms, and I get minus six x. This one is what we call a monomial. Mono means one. So it's a monomial, and we have one term. There are no like terms since I only have one. And the degree on this polynomial is going to be zero. The leading coefficient is that constant value that we see there. So it's negative nine. And again, there's no simplifying to be done because there were no like terms. We have one more kind of special kind of polynomial, and that's this one here. This is called a binomial because we have two terms. So we have monomial, binomial, trinomial, and after three, we just call them all polynomials. All of them are actually polynomials, but we give these three a special name. All right. So the number of terms gives us two. That's why it's a binomial. And do we have any like terms? No. Degree of the polynomial, the only one I see is this six. That would be the degree of my polynomial. And again, the coefficient on that thing, including the sign in front of it, will be my leading coefficient. So that's negative two. And since I didn't have any like terms, again, I can't simplify. Now, you may not be able to read this very well, but we have one, two, three, four terms. So this is just a polynomial. And we had, we said four terms.  So if I look at that very closely, I have an a b term right here, and I have another a b term right here. So I have a b and I also have three a b. Now, the other two are not like terms because this one has an a squared, but only one factor of b in the term. And this one over here has the a squared, but it has two factors of b with it. So they're not like terms. All right. So the degree of the polynomial, this is where it gets fun. We have to add the exponents to know what the degree of each term is. So if we add the a and b, that's just going to be two. And if I had as a squared and b, that's two plus one or three. And this one again is two because it was like term. And then we have two plus two. So that makes for the degree of our polynomial. And again, just like before, the number in front of it including the sign. So it's a negative four. We can simplify this one. So I'm going to write my two a squared b. And then that combination, they're both positive. So I had three plus one more would be plus four a b.  And then my final one, it's two terms, so it's a binomial. There are no like terms. And now we have to add our exponents again to find our degree. Three plus four is going to be seven. And four plus two is going to be six. Seven is going to be the degree of my polynomial. The coefficient in front of that is just a one. So the leading coefficient would be one. And I had no like terms, so I can't simplify.


It's a unique place that only exists for a very short period of time. He's narrating to come here and just listen to and speak to people who have big dreams and they're trying to realise them.


Putin reveals Moscow's main issue with U.S. Moscow is striving to create a multi-polar world rather than one that is centered around the U.S. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said in an interview with with Russia One TV channel. He argued that Washington was trying to mold the world exclusively to fit its own agenda. Putin suggested that America's satellite states are also well aware of these egoistic intentions. However, for the time being they have chosen to turn a blind eye to this due to various reasons connected first and foremost with huge dependence in the economic sphere and defense. The Russian leader said some of Washington's allies also see confrontation with Russia as a unifying cause eclipsing any differences between them and the U.S. He added as an example Putin cited the U.S. government's efforts to attract European businesses to American soil as well as a submarine deal last summer which saw Canberra abruptly exit a contract with a French manufacturer in favor of a U.S. competitor. This incident was humiliating for Paris, the president said. Putin emphasized that Moscow cannot and will not behave like this. In the end, such a stance, the fight for a multi-polar world for respect for each other and everyone in the international arena for taking into account everyone's interests I don't have the slightest doubt will prevail. Putin also claimed that Western elites will only be satisfied and prepared to admit us into the so-called family of civilized nations if Russia disintegrates into several independent states. In such a scenario, he said, the West would place the resulting countries under its control. He added that the disintegration of Russia in such circumstances would call into question the existence of the Russian people in its current form. Commenting on his decision earlier this week to suspend Russia's participation in the New START Treaty, the last remaining nuclear accord between Moscow and Washington, Putin argued that the move was required to safeguard Russia's security as well as its strategic stability. According to the Russian president, he opted for this course of action in light of a more aggressive NATO which has announced as its prime goal Russia's strategic defeat.


Okay, great. Thanks. We are a very small group and we have protected our smallness by the fact that we went to the wrong room last night. So I want to apologize in advance for those people who went to the correct room and never found us. Two of the people did find us, but it was Mark's fault. We followed him. This group, from once we came, we used to be the miscellaneous group, which is a very uninviting title, and initially a lot of the topics were kind of IRB-ocentric. We escaped that trap quite quickly, thinking that that belongs everywhere. And we've evolved to this clinical research interface, which is sort of everything we're talking about. So our goal is the following. To explore the boundaries, what are they, where are they, how do they overlap, what do we know about each side and the middle, realizing it's not just a black and white, it really is a spectrum, is genomic information different from emerging clinical, other clinical information technologies, and is there a relevant research agenda that we could really identify for the space? Why should we do this? Because if we don't, we think the boundary is going to become a gap, and we don't think we are right now where we'd like to be. And where we would like to be is here, a knowledge-driven ecosystem. I love that term. With open sharing of ideas and problems, complementary efforts between everyone, maximizing output, advancing health, and everyone loves us and gives us money. But and so within genetics or genomics, where this would ideally be, is that we'd have robust collaboration with clinical contextualization, researchers working on problems and course correcting and concert and feedback with clinicians, clinicians anxiously awaiting research results and actively incorporating into their care, quality processes for communicating appropriate results, and seamless bi-directional flow between clinical and research. That would be nirvana. And I, we wanted to make it clear that it has to be in both directions. There are going to be in the clinical setting where I definitely have findings that need to be bumped back to research and we're really going to do a disservice if you just keep those in kind of the clinical node. And I think this gets to what David was suggesting in terms of return of research results versus disclosure. I think we have to, this is an area I think we need some better terminology and better understandings there. But even with this bi-directional flow pattern, there's very important modulators. There's patients, there's advocacy groups, local institutional pressures, a variety of industries, and here I mean not only big pharma and device, but also third party payers, research funding and laws and strong suggestions from those who give us the laws. So it's not, I think the slide we had yesterday where you know that the adoption of that test went way up until something happened. I mean this is, as you can imagine, it's not a unifactorial thing. But instead of where we'd like to be, where we are is this warp speed and it keeps going. There's difficulty with technology and this avalanche of what is seemingly more and more uncertain information. And while maybe many of the folks in this room can keep up, those who are not spending their life in genetics have a really hard time. And I know everyone had a quote, my quote is from our own Machiavelli. Anyone who thinks they understand it all is delusional. And this is from our committee member with the first name of Mark, of whom has many friends here. So what are the gap inducers? What is really pushing the boundary apart? First of all, the way we present genetic data is not very friendly to those who aren't living in that world. The uncertainty really drives people apart. Many clinicians, I'm being very black and white about clinicians and researchers just trying to push the extremes. But as a clinician, you want to know, do I have to act or not act? And this kind of, well, it might be important, maybe check back in a week. Well, you know, it doesn't kind of fit, particularly if it's multiple results you're getting the same way. There's a concern that genetic owows coming from the labs fail to consider the importance of environment, particularly when we look at all the HIPAA issues and identifiability, environmental things are really hard to keep on there, as well as the clinical setting. Again, this lack of clinical conceptualization, and oftentimes the findings have no relationship to what clinicians feel are the pressing problems. Other gap inducers, the impression is that the focus is how do we get this into the medical record and clinical practice rather than should we, and when should we. And there's also this issue of the evolving role of the patient. In terms of what are the expectations, direct to consumer genetic testing. This is the only place we put social media. We are very flattered that many of you thought social media should be ours. We have very consciously said no, we don't think it is we think it if anything belongs on its own somewhere. But people are finding out more. And I've added here also this medical record transparency because as things do start migrating to the medical record, what is happening is medical records are available to patients as they should be. But what some clinicians are finding is that you get a call from a patient saying you never told me that my serum calcium was abnormal. And you look at it and it was, you know, 10.3 and the high normal was 10.2. And the clinician is now being asked to address this. So just think of adding on and here is your entire whole genome sequence and we you're going to have people who are then going to mind that and be calling consistently. So again, that interface is a changing one. So we felt the gap needs to be better identified and ideally to look for where can we do some work. The gap we must avoid. Here is the geneticist. Wow, look what we've discovered. And here's a clinician and you think I care because and how do we avoid that. So what I've done and in this I have actually added bench researchers and clinicians. But I think everyone here has an adequate ego to realize that there are a lot of people in the middle and I'm just trying to make the extreme.  So the gaps I'm going to talk about are there's the number of different ones and they kind of overlap. So I'll just go through all of them. And I agree that many can be put in different places. But in clear terms of the clinical context, bench researchers limited or no experience of interacting with patients do not appreciate the complexity of taking samples or data or communicating what the risk is. We are seeing an increased number of PhD trained without any clinical intervention, they can just buy tissue online. And they have never really had to talk to somebody. Clinicians on the other hand have kind of the fiduciary responsibility to their patients. They are being overwhelmed with pet with questions from patients. And they really serve as the information filter. Bench research that many researchers overrate their own research and lack big picture context. Clinicians await guidance from institutions or subspecialty societies and are very suspicious of individual Oh, wow. Researchers oftentimes have a simplified view of what it takes to get something into practice, whereas clinicians understand it immensely. And I do think the issue of reimbursement is much bigger than what the third party payers were saying here yesterday. It's not just on tests, it's on care.  So you take up that money in an ICU. So it's not just with it's very complex. Still within the clinical context, even here, we've heard it's be great. You'll have the whole genome sequence. This can be used for life. Clinicians I order specific tests to rule out a candidate diagnosis that are relevant to my patient at that time. Uninvited information is not welcome. Whole genome sequencing can limit diagnostic crusades. Clinicians will say uninvited information causes diagnostic crusades. Clinicians who will provide the pre testing counseling as well as the post testing counseling and remember someone yesterday showed a slide that said when clinicians were asked non-genetic clinicians, 72% scored themselves as having a poor understanding of genetics. And yet these are the people who patients are coming to. In terms of motives gaps, on the researcher side urgency to move research findings forward, perhaps into clinical care. I think we're funding is now going with a focus on translational medicine, yes into clinical care. Clinicians again are waiting for that robust evidence for change and they have little time, energy or expertise for looking at all these one offs. Basic researchers urgency to prove the importance. In some cases, your institution may push you. This is really important. Let's get a patent. There's that was whole issue which we talked about. Clinicians feel there are all these rules and regulations and legal issues. This is in the chart and it's not really a valid test. What if a lawyer finds it? What if an insurer finds it? Basic researchers, here's my great result online to the next thing. The next thing for the clinician is the patient who's been in the waiting room every 15 minutes. The time issue is huge. The genetic information gap. Again, in for a genetics is different, both sides, I think feel that way. I think many people in this room, this is the most important information we have. Use it now. Clinicians genetics is overhyped. And I hear is the soccer quote. Soccer is the game of the future and it always will be. A lot of clinicians feel that way with genetics. Again, if it's that important, someone I wouldn't be paid for not doing it. The researchers, this is really great. You get a one-time whole genome sequence and you can look at that for the whole lifetime of the patient. Clinicians, you expect me to look at something that was obtained 20 years ago. I probably can't even find it. It'll probably be on a different IT platform anyway and won't be able to read it. I'll just repeat it. That's, you know, we got to get away from that. And again, clinicians liability concerns for omission and commission and big issues about what can and cannot go into the medical chart and who can and cannot put stuff into the medical chart. I think that's a changing area. Bad press. Researchers, clinicians know nothing about genetics. Clinicians, researchers have no concept of clinical care. There's a process for assessing new findings. All of their findings are not earth shattering. Researchers, we need to develop genetics for dummy's courses. I have heard this so many times. You're going to get a good number of people coming to that one. Personalized medicine on the clinician side. This is what we do. It's off-putting to think that genetics has identified this as a concept. So do I practice impersonal medicine if I don't use the whole genome in my? And this is actually from talking to Sutrinidad who works with Wiley Burke. They did some interviews with primary care physicians. And the amount of, you know, they're they're pissed.  It's just not our area of expertise. And they hate the concept of personalized medicine. So suggestions. The last slide, I think we've heard this mantra many times today. A lot of people are in this space. We need to collaborate. We do not want to duplicate. In fact, our little working group is very happy to go away if this is being done elsewhere. And that we don't think we need duplication here. I do think we need to better understand evidentiary medicine and the process for routinizing it into clinical care. What standards? How is it triaged? How is it communicated? I think, you know, Paul just made my wish I hadn't put development guidelines, but he just said they're never good and they're never used anyway. But how do people decide what to do? And a lot of the talk we've had is institution-based. I think when you talk to clinicians, you know, I was in pediatric ICU medicine. And I don't so much care what's happening at Mass General. But when I go to my critical care society meetings, if we're the only people doing that, it's a little nerve-wracking. So I think we have to more look at subspecialty societies and get away from the siloing of individual institutions. What do clinicians need? What do the systems need to support the clinicians? And a lot of this is not only how to store and how to access the information, but also the whole counseling issues. What do patients expect? And again, I think that we are getting a much more informed, but maybe not knowledgeable patient base. They have a lot more data, but I'm not sure they know what it is. I think we need to better understand the medical chart and process, legal and institutional considerations, downstream implications, not only for following up on information, but also who can now access this. Maximize, and this is Paul, is one of the people who was able to find us last night. Maximize collaborations for clinical trial genomics. And this is essentially without repeating exactly what Paul was referring to. Look for those opportunities. And it would be in that interface. And if we were to, hey, Babel, have some wins in that space, it might, you know, do a lot for both sides of the street. And then finally, this is borrowed from work that Laura and Brad at all have put together. And they have a much more detailed thing. But it's just an attempt to look at just four things. And we're not even on there as a group. But you know, CESA, the Return of Research Result, Return of Results Consortium, Emergent Page. A lot of people in the informed consent area, a lot in the actionable variants, sequencing, phenotyping, electronic records, instruments and measurements. And if you look at our group, we're kind of in all of these also. So I think what really, really need to do is where do we cross-fertilize and not have siloed conversations.  So I said I would talk very quickly. So happy to take comments or if members of our group want to add or think I got something totally wrong, my ego can handle it. And I again apologize. I think there's two people who tried to find us and were unable to. It was Mark's fault. Although we followed him. Okay, we're, Jeff. Thanks, Pearl. One of the ways that has been used to address at least some of the gaps that you measured between the bench researchers and clinicians has been the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Grad and Med Initiative. I'm just, I just wanted to make you aware that there are some ways that some institutions are trying to educate basic researchers about the world of the clinician, but I really doubt the genetics piece is really a strong focal point of that, and perhaps that's one area to explore on the forward translation side. I don't know about the equivalent for clinicians to learn more about the life and issues around bench research. I think, and again this last slide is just only what is looking at NHGRI. I think to expand this to NIH in general as well as other places. I know like University of Washington has some good physician education programs, but I think what we need to do is, as a group, identify are there pieces that aren't being covered by these others and then to branch out what are other resources out there. I think there's a lot of people worried about this space, but I think we just need to amplify the level. Okay. Just a quick comment and I'm not offended at all by your separation of basic science lab science from clinical, but just can't resist the comment that I'm pleased at the increased number of attendees and participants and presentations by the laboratory directors who are the bridge category that I self-identify, so this is totally biased, as the ideal bridge usually being people with strong laboratory research training background whose then professional career is clinic the bridge and interface between laboratory technology laboratory findings into clinical medicine. And in a lot of meetings I go to they're not present on the invitee participant list. They're not presenting and so the gaps are huge when you don't have that group represented, but that's what we do is bridge between the new technology, new information on the basic science laboratory side where those researchers often don't have the clinical training and exposure, but we interact with clinicians and with patient data every day coming from a research training background, so that's... You realize that most people in this room don't realize that my first boss when I got NIH was David, so you can see how his brain washed me, but I agree with him anyway. That comment just can't be followed by anything. Titular, his first titular boss. One thing, I'm going to say a very short comment about that I think that what we're talking about is actually part of a larger issue. So the people that we really think about bridging the space are physician scientists in many ways and there's a really a dearth of young physician scientists coming up through the ranks and I think that's something that we need to think about how we're going to encourage that group of people who can help build those bridges between both research and clinical care because most of us who are physician scientists, this is what we do every day. One thing that people might want to keep in mind that our writing grants or funding grants or reviewing grants, we're getting a lot of pushback and I think it's rightful from our primary care providers who, you know, the assumption has always been that we'll generate this data, it'll be delivered in the clinic and that part is free and they're telling us very clearly that that's not free. Just a comment, you did show the clinical and the research going in both directions but I think that most of what researchers think about is the one direction and I think that the clinicians have to be engaged very early on, it goes back to what the payers were saying, to actually be doing research on clinically relevant questions and that is a huge problem. They have their field of science that they want to work on and they're doing discovery but they aren't targeting any clinical question that needs to be addressed and I think that link-up has to happen really, really early, even before grants are submitted and I don't know how you do that but it's got to be done. Okay, do we still have time? Are we? Well, we're late anyway but so make a comment and then we'll... Jeff, the hard use program you mentioned was that PhDs getting clinical training. Yeah, just to comment on your comment and Kate's comment. Although I've always been and will continue to be a big fan of physician-scientist training and funding mechanisms, I think there's always been a huge inequity in funding efforts in the opposite direction, the hard use program being an exception. NIH has done very little to train PhDs in clinical areas so in the success rate of physician-scientist training and retention in research has been miserable, it's still miserable and I haven't heard any good new ideas how to fix that. There's an overabundance of highly trained underemployed PhDs in the world, it's a huge labor pool and a huge majority of PhDs who have never been exposed to clinical training or settings would love to be more involved in clinical research. So it's this huge opportunity that I've never seen NIH seriously address. And if I could just add a quick additional comment, I run a clinical molecular genetics training program at Harvard to take PhDs and train them in clinical laboratory genetics and the challenge is, and this is true across the entire U.S., there's no funding for that opportunity and I turn away over 50 applicants every year who want to do this and we have no funding to do it. Pearl, we'll get the last word. Oh good, another negative word. And I think on the flip side from the physician side, I think the way we're going with training with the 80-hour work week, you're kicked out of the hospital, I think any opportunities for beginning the interaction with researchers is drying up and I completely agree that that group of people are the ones who currently are doing the best job and, you know, for a multitude of reasons we're losing that group. OK, so the schedule says we're close to a break, but what we're going to do is we're going to hear from Howard McLeod now.


So, hi, my name is Muhammad Najjar. I'm from Nokia Cloudman. I'm a software engineer in Vitrage, contributor in Vitrage. So, we'll go on project update about Vitrage. So, short, what is Vitrage? What's all about? So, Vitrage, it's OpenStack root cause analysis service that has three main functions. The first one, it's providing root cause analysis. Suppose you are a cloud administrator and you have a severe problem in your system. You could get a lot of alarms from different resources. Vitrage can help you to arrange them and give you the root cause view and pinpoint on the problem. So, and the second one would be raise alarm, raise deduced alarm on resources that might not be directly monitored using detailed topology graph that has, from this graph, Vitrage has a deep understanding on the system so it can raise deduced alarms on those affected resources. For example, a very simple scenario if you have a host and the nick is down. On this host, you will have an instance but the instance would be unreachable because the host is down but Nova is not aware about this instance is down. So, we raise deduced alarm and setting deduced state and we'll inform Nova about that. The third thing would be the giving holistic and clear view of the system from the topology graph. The entity graph would give us the three layers of relationship between the entities. First would be the physical layer and we have the application layer and the virtual layer between them. Physical layer would be like hosts, virtual layer like instances and the application layer like deployments of application, for example, heat. Bit about project background. So, Vitrage started three years ago by Nuoka developers and since then, we, back then, we realized that there is no RCA solution in OpenStack so we initiated a new project for this purpose. After only six months, Vitrage became an official OpenStack project by the way, it's record time and now Vitrage is stable, nature running on production in large deployments. During Rocky Cycle, we had around 10 active contributors. So, let me describe the main feature we introduced in Rocky Cycle. The first and the big one is alarm history. So, one of the main features since Vitrage holds an in-memory graph database which is network X, when alarms is cleared, it is deleted from the graph so we can't go after records from deleted alarms. So, we wanted the user to see the alarms that cleared, for example, if a cloud administrator has come to work at the morning, he wants to see the health of his system so he can go back and see the alarms that occurred at night. Another example is if we have its CD problem and it's trying to scale out but we can't know what is the problem caused to its CD problem. So, if we go back in history, we can see that it was caused because safe problems that now we can go and recover this its CD container. So, another motivation would be giving statistics from previous alarms, which alarm appears the most, and we can give the administrator a big point what he could do or change in his cloud. So, what is the implementation of that? So, again, we had network X in memory. Now, alongside to that, we are using history and keeping it in a relational database, MariaDB. So, but we are storing only the basic information, meaning the alarm properties, its resource ID and the relation between the alarms. This way, we are not replacing the graph database. So, it's another additional in the side and all that going alongside from the in-memory database. So, another big feature would be fast failover mechanism. So, we tried to pull the graph again held in network X. So, period to rookie, restart graph process mean that entire graph had to rebuild itself from data sources and we have seen cases where data sources are not implemented efficiently. So, this restart took a lot of time, so we wanted to make it more efficient. So, now we are using the database, we are storing graph snapshots into and this help us to fast failover. So, how we do that? And after periodically get all, we take the whole graph and make a snapshot from it and depress it and put it in our composite and put it in the database and between each get all, we are storing the events that happened. So, after restarting a graph, we take the last snapshot and playing the events that occurred since then. So, after trying that it was very fast compared the previous situation that we had and it is more efficient. So, another thing would be, so yeah, it is all related. It gave us a significant performance enhancement, now we can support more entities, around 100,000 entities and staying we are continuing this input and we want to improve the performance. We'll see later. So, yeah. Now we have Kubernetes and Prometheus data sources. Kubernetes, if you don't know, it's the leading container orchestration framework and Prometheus is the leading monitor on Kubernetes. Vitraj now can show topology that includes both Nova and both Kubernetes cluster instances from Nova and instances that are related to the Kubernetes cluster and can perform a root cause analysis from Prometheus and Zebix and relate those alarms together. A very nice demo we can see in the booth. And so, now let's talk about the future. What we are holding to stand. So, we want this very bad to generate a template in a more easy way. We have a great template now, but it's getting complicated for a scenario which are very simple and it can get reputation like all the time. So, we are thought to let's do two things. Like, let's generate a template from few parameters or we can do easier template syntax which will be used, for example, on heat. We'll see that in a minute. Very, again, a very known scenario. It is a host with an instance. There is alarm on the host which causes alarm on the instance and the way back. So, those can be generated easily from just specifying the alert name on the host, alert name on the instance and the severity. Another thing that what I mentioned before, the motivation is shorter template syntax would be enable configuring vitrage template within heat template. So, again, from little parameters that are given from heat templates we want to generate vitrage template in a shortened way. A very basic template is not shortened as I explained the scenario before and we want the heat users to have not to write a lot to use vitrage. That's the main motivation. So, another thing that related to the database we started using it in the database and storing alarms and snapshots we still want to improve vitrage API so the pretty big work have done before and we are still want to improve vitrage API and reduce the memory it's using. Another thing would be add a graph action panel in entity graph so adding a mechanism running on external actions which are manually configured by the users from the entity graph. The action will be plugins so the user can write his actions and execute them. Example for those would be like opening external monitor, executing external tests and etc. A second phase would be actions depend on a current section, a selection in the graph. For example, selecting a host so do an action that related to the host. Other features are very big one. We needed to handle it before but it is still we want to do it now. It is vitrage tempest plugin that need to be refactored because money test and vitrage code accesses vitrage code directly and it is wrong. The tempest should access vitrage API only so we are trying to refactor that and we want now to support upgrade and trove that I just went to their presentation. Trove it is a database as a service providing automated database and life cycle management including provision, configuration, backups, scaling and etc. So we are looking to integrate with them. We already have, we want to have a data source with them to get the entities and trove them in our entity graph. We want integration with other data sources but the problem we don't have enough resources so everyone that is interested to contribute and help us with that. So we are considering sending vitrage allowance to Zakhar and very, very important we want integration with Monaska we hope to have it soon. So another thing that vitrage is highly involved in self-healing special interest group the purpose of this group is to identify use cases requires self-healing and document possible solutions that involve several OpenStack components so we already have integration with Congress that consumes notification about vitrage alarms and we would like to let users to configure vitrage within heat template as I said before and again Monaska, Monaska vitrage should get all alarms from Monaska and be able to perform root cause analysis on them. And a pretty cool project called NGPASS it's an incorporating of several companies in academics like Orange, EMEC, ATOS and DTU those companies and academics aim to define and support the coming 5G platform as a service so in vitrage side we developed the Kubernetes and Prometheus data sources on vitrage and that's it basically so contact us on those ways and if you have any questions please ask the question is is it possible to connect Kubernetes Prometheus as data source external from OpenStack vitrage can be deployed outside OpenStack so you would be able to do that on it's not related to OpenStack so it can be degraded with Kubernetes and Prometheus the question is how many memory and it repeated to how many storage we need to store 1,000 entities this is a very technical answer but I can give you the exact because it depends on what are the entities I can't tell you because it depends on the entity graph how it's going with alarms how the whole cloud is working so it's not exact number or assumption if it's working I don't know okay cool do you mean here? you mean this one right? just I want to so a comment not a question was on the entity graph action panel here is a guy that is along with Minwok is contributing this action panel and he wants a status update what is action yeah what will so yeah okay and what's edge known cool so the second note was about deploying vitrage in edge right and you have a design some architecture design on that so those are very specific things we can talk privately and we can give you information where you can contact that but thank you so the time is up right so thank you all for coming