Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a quotation record.
00:00:00to undo the connection, the continence that determines
00:00:03unity of process and
00:00:06plenary by 10 to judgment, legal uncertainty, lack of
00:00:10predictability, therefore, in my view, a
00:00:14sum of very serious
00:00:16defects,
00:00:19if it weren't for the literal
00:00:21interpretation of the regulation of the
00:00:25law, we would have a much more
00:00:27acute problem. Record News continues
00:00:31following the live broadcast of the extraordinary
00:00:34session of the Federal
00:00:43later in relation to
00:00:45the facts,
00:01:08attribution
00:01:13of rapporteurships and changes of rapporteurships
00:01:17at the discretion of an individual, we
00:01:20are tearing up all the political philosophy
00:01:23from Aristotle to the
00:01:27contemporary proceduralists.
00:01:30all the way from the basic distinction of government of
00:01:33laws and government of
00:01:35men.
00:01:40the principle of the natural judge
00:01:43applies to an inquiry, of course it
00:01:46does, and see that
00:01:50these are reflections that should
00:01:53concern us all, because they transcend this
00:01:57judgment.
00:02:00Minister Dino, I just wanted to make an observation, even for a
00:02:04matter of impartiality, we don't have an
00:02:07inquiry, no one is, we don't have an
00:02:10inquiry, we are facing an inquiry, there is no inquiry
00:02:14Your Excellency, by yet, what we have
00:02:17is an investigation, that's not an inquiry, we are here, the
00:02:20object today is to deliberate whether there will be an inquiry, Minister
00:02:24Alexandre Morais is not yet
00:02:28appearing as a subject of an inquiry.
00:02:31"Minister Fux, if it were true, with all due respect to your
00:02:34excellency's statement, we would have to annul everything that has happened so far,
00:02:38because today there was evidentiary instruction, your
00:02:41excellency says: there is nothing, your excellency just said, it's a moment when
00:02:45we are, no, no, Minister Fux,
00:02:48your excellency just said that we have nothing, but your
00:02:52excellency wants to apply the rules of the inquiry, of course, because
00:02:56it's not under inquiry, something must exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here."
00:03:01So if there is nothing, if
00:03:04there is a procedural nothing or a legal nothing,
00:03:07not legalism, not what has been done so
00:03:11far is totally null.
00:03:13I
00:03:15don't agree with your perception respectfully, but
00:03:19it's Aristotle, it's syllogism, it's premise,
00:03:22premise, so and since we need to have
00:03:25records, right? to deliberate, we don't have criminal
00:03:29action. "We had a petition,
00:03:33in this petition, under the primitive rapporteurship of
00:03:36Minister André, acts of
00:03:40procedural instruction occurred,
00:03:42including by means of requesting
00:03:46elements and
00:03:49conviction, because if not we wouldn't
00:03:53be here, let's imagine, Minister Fux, two scenarios,
00:03:57scenario one, Minister André. legitimate
00:04:01actor by distribution of the
00:04:04master case, finds there an
00:04:08allusion, uh, let's imagine the carioca
00:04:11minister who supports Fluminense,
00:04:15right, which is your excellency's case,
00:04:17measure one, federal police identify who is the
00:04:21carioca minister who supports Fluminense, this is
00:04:24an act of instruction, this is an act of
00:04:27instruction. from what I understood, measure
00:04:31B, measure B,
00:04:34President Faquim, I found
00:04:37here an allusion to a carioca minister who supports Fluminense,
00:04:41the matter is with your excellency,
00:04:44so, uh, as we
00:04:46had a
00:04:50procedural inadequacy, I'll call it that, we
00:04:54ran into a situation, I repeat, where there is no
00:04:57procedurality, there is no ritual. there are personal
00:05:01choices with the aggravating factor that I mentioned a
00:05:05moment ago, Minister Carmen, if choosing only Minister
00:05:09Alexandre's ritual was already serious.
00:05:12"The problem is that it's not just Minister Alexandre who is in the same
00:05:16situation, Minister André, for example, is and so many others,
00:05:20so many others, your excellency and others, so how
00:05:23will it be, we will choose a ritual for each
00:05:26one, I in other words, as I will arrive
00:05:30there soon, Minister Fux, as rapporteur, I will
00:05:34arrive there soon, how will we be able to choose the ritual
00:05:37and case by
00:05:41case for... the cases, those that have already arisen and those that will arise,
00:05:45I, as a member of this court, think that
00:05:48for the technical authority
00:05:52of the court it is not good, and I think that this
00:05:55will lead, Mr. President, to an irreparable
00:05:57dissolution,
00:05:59because it will be a crisis
00:06:02every week, priced,
00:06:06because I imagine that at this
00:06:08point no one imagines, no one... that we are only going
00:06:11to deliberate about Minister Alexandre, right, so
00:06:14we'll have to deliberate about all the others,
00:06:18then for each one that comes,
00:06:21we'll choose a ritual, I'll give you
00:06:25an example, soon, if the matter of
00:06:28order is overcome, which I continue here in my
00:06:32drive, praying that it will be
00:06:35accepted, let's imagine that the matter of order is
00:06:38rejected, we will proceed to the vote.
00:06:42The question that will arise immediately: Does Minister
00:06:46André vote?
00:06:48Does Minister Alexandre vote? Your Excellency, allow me, an
00:06:51observation, Your Excellency does not know, of course I allow it, no Minister, not
00:06:55here there is a peculiar fact,
00:06:59there was a conflict of
00:07:02decisions, there was a conflict of decisions
00:07:05between members of the same court, without
00:07:08hierarchy in relation to each other, who dissipates this?
00:07:13No, no, Minister, and
00:07:15this case, I already debated it this morning and agreed, we are no longer
00:07:19dealing with it, what your excellency said, I said
00:07:23this morning, is that in the case of the Director-General of the Federal
00:07:26Police, yes, there was no other place to
00:07:30resolve it, also because I am from the first panel and Minister André is from the
00:07:34second, I did not discuss this, I said, I went to the cabinet, I told
00:07:37Minister Faquim, Minister, I'm
00:07:41good, there is a decision removing the Director-General of the
00:07:43PF, I consider that this hinders two operations that
00:07:47I have already granted, I granted the operations
00:07:51before the removal of Dr. Andrei, Dark
00:07:55Horse and Cezinha Madureira,
00:07:59before the removal, and as Minister Gilmar
00:08:02said, if
00:08:04we take an armed corporation
00:08:08and remove its leadership,
00:08:11it's an act. quite reckless, I
00:08:14would say, and as at that moment this meant
00:08:17operationally dismantling the
00:08:20federal police, I
00:08:23considered that just as Minister André has
00:08:27and indeed has, and Your Excellency has, I also
00:08:31have the general power of caution over my
00:08:34processes, and it was in the name of the effectiveness of two
00:08:38of my decisions, one Dark Horse,
00:08:42the other... Cezinha Amadureira
00:08:43and
00:08:46the facts showed that I was right, because
00:08:49in the case of Congressman Cezinha Amadoreira there was
00:08:53a delay of 5 days in fulfilling the measure
00:08:57exactly due to operational difficulties, but that's
00:09:00superseded and with an advantage
00:09:04for Minister Faquim, there were
00:09:07records, there was a request for suspension of
00:09:10an injunction, he just... said this
00:09:13this morning I repeat, he just expanded the preliminary
00:09:16suspension, perhaps excessively, but it's not my business,
00:09:19because he suspended even an administrative
00:09:22procedure in the PGR,
00:09:25I said this this morning, I repeat and will repeat for the rest of my
00:09:28life, but at least there were
00:09:31records, right, we are not talking about conflicting
00:09:34decisions, we are talking about the following hypothesis, Minister
00:09:38André Mendonça,
00:09:41he sends the president a request
00:09:44for or
00:09:47authorization for the investigation of Minister
00:09:51Alexandre, immediately Minister
00:09:54Alexandre sends to the
00:09:58president, because there was a lie, president,
00:10:01that a lie, I am against
00:10:04lies, I am against it, but it was not from anyone in the court,
00:10:07that Minister Alexandre had used the
00:10:11inquiry.
00:10:25another lie, it was this plenary, I was not
00:10:29here, it was this
00:10:311 that sanctioned the
00:10:34inquiry, so there is no arbitrary inquiry
00:10:37by Toffoli and Alexandre, no, it was voted
00:10:41here,
00:10:44when Minister Alexandre dispatches there in the
00:10:46inquiry, he sends it to the
00:10:49president,
00:10:52he didn't use it, he, he didn't, he... in the
00:10:55inquiry sending it to the president and we
00:10:59are now at this moment where we
00:11:02have a request from Minister André to
00:11:05investigate Minister Alexandre and we have
00:11:08a request for authorization to investigate a request from
00:11:12Minister Alexandre asking for authorization to investigate Minister
00:11:15André, soon today,
00:11:18tomorrow we will have requests from so many other
00:11:22colleagues in the same situation.
00:11:26What is the ritual? Will Minister André vote on the
00:11:30investigation request he himself made for Minister Alexandre? Your
00:11:34Excellency does not know the answer, neither do I, no, because it has not been raised yet, that's
00:11:37right, it has not been raised because it is not written, that's what I'm saying, there is no
00:11:41ritual, we are debating a point of order in
00:11:44relation to, oh Minister Fux, I am
00:11:48explaining the point of order, I am
00:11:51showing that the point of order is based
00:11:55on the fact that we do not have a pre-established ritual, a natural
00:11:59judge, uniform this here, exactly,
00:12:02there, I knew your Excellency would agree with me, as there has never
00:12:06been anything like this here, this
00:12:08embarrassing moment, that's what I'm saying,
00:12:12so continuing, Mr. President,
00:12:15I uh, went to research with those who know more than
00:12:18me, Lee, Rocksin, Luiz
00:12:22Greco, Rassimer. Francisco de Assis
00:12:26Toledo, and so on, there are many, an
00:12:29auxiliary judge from the cabinet helped me a lot,
00:12:33there's one here that I didn't read because it doesn't teach anything right, it's Raul
00:12:37Safaron, Nilo Batista, but I, I will only quote
00:12:40one, only one,
00:12:43uh, which also reassures Minister
00:12:47Fux's spirit with his just theoretical
00:12:50objection, natural judge in criminal procedure,
00:12:54uh, Gustavo.
00:12:57Natural judge in preliminary investigation, so if your
00:13:00excellency thinks there is no inquiry,
00:13:04but there is no doubt that we have at least a preliminary investigation, otherwise we wouldn't
00:13:08be here, the guarantee of a natural
00:13:11judge appears traditionally linked to
00:13:14criminal procedure, or rather, the definition of the
00:13:18competent judge for criminal condemnatory
00:13:20procedure, it remains to be seen if this same guarantee
00:13:24should be applied to the judge who
00:13:27acts during the preliminary investigation
00:13:30phase,
00:13:33whether it is carried out through a police
00:13:36inquiry or by other means,
00:13:39there, it asks, other
00:13:42means, he follows obviously,
00:13:45not differently from other times, I believe that it is not
00:13:49appropriate for me to read here
00:13:51for hours and hours only the most important
00:13:56but it is necessary to substantiate why
00:13:59uh, I want to record my
00:14:02legal conviction in relation to the point of
00:14:05order. The judge who acts during the preliminary
00:14:08investigation is a judge like any other judge
00:14:12has the same prerogatives, equal guarantees, is subject
00:14:16to identical constitutional prohibitions and legal
00:14:18impediments.
00:14:21Also in the inquiry, following the reading, or what?
00:14:25Any other form of preliminary investigation, there is the right to a
00:14:28natural judge and consequently that jurisdictional
00:14:32acts eventually practiced are orders from a competent
00:14:35judge. Now, who
00:14:38establishes the competent judge is
00:14:40someone's individual will, of course
00:14:43not. Who establishes it are the norms and
00:14:47in this case, how is a competent
00:14:50judge determined in a court of equals? By means of
00:14:55distribution
00:14:58is what is in the Code of Civil Procedure, in the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the internal
00:15:01regulations, because
00:15:05I repeat, eh, today it may be an
00:15:07qualified, honest,
00:15:11upright president like Minister Faquim and all the
00:15:14others who will follow, but in another court or even
00:15:18here, tomorrow it may not be, and that is why
00:15:21the guarantee of the natural judge cannot be...
00:15:25impeached.
00:15:27The president, uh, with good reason,
00:15:31I understand your
00:15:33indignation uh, about the term.
00:15:37Use of the word "vocatória" is that I didn't find
00:15:41another, perhaps we can
00:15:45create one, but the fact is that
00:15:49eh, if there is a rapporteur,
00:15:52as there was, a
00:15:54rapporteur, what is the procedural
00:15:58mechanism? One, this rapporteur
00:16:00resigns,
00:16:03it didn't happen, it happened with Minister Toffle.
00:16:08Two, an impediment or suspension of this
00:16:11rapporteur or suspension of this rapporteur is argued and
00:16:15accepted, that also didn't happen,
00:16:17in your excellency's decision, it is clear that your excellency, even due to your
00:16:21background, did not use the word
00:16:24"vocatória", but I reiterate, I did not
00:16:28find another name for an act
00:16:31of a president who says: the competence is mine,
00:16:34this is a vocation that normally... is only
00:16:38possible, normally,
00:16:41it is when there is jurisdictional
00:16:43hierarchy, we can invoke a process from a
00:16:47lower hierarchy
00:16:49court,
00:16:52or even, Mr. President, when there is a request for a preliminary
00:16:55injunction, as mentioned here by the eminent dean
00:16:58Gilmar, he was president of this court, Minister
00:17:02Luiz Fux,
00:17:05there was the granting of two two. very
00:17:09discussed habeas corpus, not by him, by Minister Marco
00:17:12Aurélio. One habeas corpus was related to
00:17:16Minister, to the fugitive Salvatore
00:17:20Catiola, it was a single-judge
00:17:24decision, Mr. Salvatore
00:17:27Catiola, of whom I make no value
00:17:29judgment, he was a fugitive for 7
00:17:32years,
00:17:34he ended up being extradited, anyway, it doesn't matter much.
00:17:39In this same segment,
00:17:42in the wake of this precedent, there was the granting in this
00:17:46court of the habeas corpus by Minister Marco Aurélio, if I'm not mistaken,
00:17:50a single-judge decision, of a drug trafficker named André do
00:17:53Rap, if I mispronounce the name, please
00:17:57forgive me, a suspension was filed for
00:18:00Your Excellency, who was the president of the court, this and your
00:18:03excellency, then yes, with records, with... and
00:18:07we continue to follow the STF session here on Link News,
00:18:11I now call Renato Diniz and Gustavo Toledo to
00:18:15detail more of this historic day at the STF, good
00:18:18afternoon, good afternoon Daísa, a good afternoon to Renato, good
00:18:21afternoon Gustavo, good afternoon Daísa, good afternoon to you who follow us on this historic
00:18:25day of session at the Federal Supreme Court
00:18:28and to analyze this session and
00:18:31specifically analyze the speeches of Minister Flávio Dino, we call
00:18:35lawyer Max Telesc, an expert in superior courts and criminal
00:18:39law, for us to understand a little about this vote of
00:18:42the minister. Uh Max, I would like to start precisely with this phase
00:18:46of his insistence on talking about ritual and citing,
00:18:49look, there are two judges here who are
00:18:52going through a process, he even alludes to inquiry,
00:18:55investigation, there's a clash there with Minister Fux, about which
00:18:59ritual we will follow, hours, uh, explain this to us, what
00:19:03is he trying to achieve by pressing so hard on the point that there is no ritual
00:19:07to define what they want
00:19:16he, he even uses Minister Flávio Dino, he
00:19:20is of a brilliance in rhetoric in
00:19:24speech. Minister Dino is, in a
00:19:27always very brilliant way he constructs his arguments, it's not by chance that he is
00:19:31a minister of the Federal Supreme Court. What he is saying is
00:19:34that, uh, there could
00:19:37be a conflict of
00:19:41decisions, if by any chance
00:19:45later, Minister André Mendonça
00:19:48is judged by the Federal Supreme
00:19:51Court, suspected to be the rapporteur,
00:19:55how can today
00:19:59uh he not, he not, how can this judgment not go
00:20:02together, both from
00:20:05Moraes against Mendonça and...
00:20:09to use a simpler expression for people to understand, one is an
00:20:13argument of suspicion made by Minister Moraes, the other
00:20:17is uh the possibility of opening an inquiry, an
00:20:21investigation against Minister Moraes, uh, so
00:20:24what Minister Dino is arguing, in a very
00:20:28technical way, with great rhetoric, is that there could
00:20:31be this uh this
00:20:34conflict of decisions, and he uses his own... decision of Minister
00:20:38Flávio Dino, which speaks of connection and
00:20:41continence, which are terms uh of civil procedure, criminal
00:20:45procedure, general theory of procedure that say that
00:20:48there exist objects that are that
00:20:51encompass each other, uh, it's a very technical language, but
00:20:55it's as if he were judging something that is part
00:20:58of uh the same whole, so he
00:21:02takes the argument of Minister uh
00:21:05Faquim himself and says that Minister Faquim
00:21:08was contradictory because with great elegance, but he says that Minister
00:21:12Faquim was contradictory because if he wanted to unite in order
00:21:16not to bring a decision that would be
00:21:19conflicting. If he wanted to unite, not
00:21:23if he made the decision pulling the process to his presidency, uh
00:21:27saying as a basis that there would be the possibility of a
00:21:31contradictory decision, how then not to judge the two at the same
00:21:34time? The truth is that uh there is no
00:21:38pre-defined ritual, there are for the judgment
00:21:41of a minister of the Federal Supreme Court, so they
00:21:45are uh in fact constructing the ritual, there is
00:21:48a part of this legal
00:21:52order that is in the internal rules of the Supreme Court, the other part in the organic
00:21:56law of the judiciary, they today uh are going
00:21:59through this cruel stage, so to speak, of constructing this
00:22:03ritual, that is why Minister Flávio Dino raised this point of
00:22:06order, now and in fact the
00:22:10rapporteur is Minister Faquim, that is what I have
00:22:13sustained here and always told our viewers, Minister
00:22:17Faquim, as president, he both...
00:22:20is the natural judge to judge the argument of
00:22:24suspicion, it is provided for in the internal rules of the Supreme Court, it is the
00:22:27president minister who is
00:22:30the rapporteur of an argument of suspension, suspension, that
00:22:34is, what was raised against Minister Mendonça, and he
00:22:37as president of the court, as uh he made this
00:22:41argument in his vote, when he resolved the point of order, as
00:22:45president of the court, as representative of the plenary,
00:22:49he is the rapporteur. By nature, of
00:22:52a process, eventually of the opening of an investigation of
00:22:55a criminal process, right, a criminal
00:22:59investigation against a Supreme minister, he would also be the
00:23:01rapporteur, so there is no such contradiction, with all due respect,
00:23:04obviously to the very well-founded
00:23:08rhetoric of Minister Flávio Dino.
00:23:11The
00:23:13session, the first part of the session ended with Minister Gilmar Mendes
00:23:17making uh...
00:23:50discussion about what was presented by Minister Gilmar Mendes extend throughout
00:23:53this afternoon, no, we don't start to see a decision
00:23:57on whether or not to investigate Minister Alexandre de
00:24:00Moraes, certainly, today they will not finish
00:24:03judging, they may even finish judging this
00:24:07specific point of order and
00:24:10it needs to be overcome, it needs to be, uh,
00:24:14overcome, there will still probably be, Minister
00:24:17Flávio Dino himself already said this. He anticipated this in his
00:24:21vote, that there could be a questioning, if Minister
00:24:24Mendonça can vote, if Minister Alexandre de Moraes
00:24:28can vote, so see that it is complex
00:24:31and probably, I wouldn't say probably, certainly,
00:24:34maybe not even this discussion will end today,
00:24:38so uh the opening itself of the
00:24:42investigative process, of an
00:24:46eventual inquiry against the acts, right?
00:24:50uh that Minister Moraes might have
00:24:54practiced, uh, that will be further down the road,
00:24:57today it will certainly not be voted on. Dr. Max,
00:25:01thank you for your help in understanding a little of Minister
00:25:04Flávio Dino's speech, Dr. Maxegue here with
00:25:07us, helping us to move from
00:25:10legal jargon for you at home all of us to understand the ministers'
00:25:14speeches, now we return to follow Minister
00:25:17Flávio Dino's speech. Your
00:25:20Excellency: unity of process and judgment, unity of
00:25:24instruction, equal ritual, parity of
00:25:27arms, adversarial principle, broad defense,
00:25:31Fifth 54, Fifth
00:25:3455, third article of the
00:25:37CPP, are civilizational guarantees that
00:25:41cannot be overridden
00:25:45by the criminal law of the author or by personal interests legitimate outside
00:25:49this court, but not within it, and
00:25:52therefore I consider that the referral contained
00:25:55in Minister Gilmar's point of order
00:25:59is the one that best preserves
00:26:02our role as providers of justice, of legal
00:26:05certainty, and these are the
00:26:08reasons why I formally
00:26:12adhere to the considerations on Minister
00:26:15Gilmar Mendes's point of order. How does Your Excellency Minister
00:26:19Cristiano Zanin vote? Mr. President, I greet Your
00:26:22Excellency, I greet Minister Camilúcia, your eminent peers,
00:26:26Mr. Attorney General of the Republic, lawyers, attorneys,
00:26:29all civil servants who accompany us, Mr.
00:26:32President, eh, in order not to be repetitive, I
00:26:36will I will move forward by asking
00:26:40to see, Your Excellency, that I am following the
00:26:44eminent Vinício Gilmar Mendes on the point of order raised,
00:26:47and I will just make some
00:26:51additional notes. As we have seen here
00:26:55throughout the debates, we have many
00:26:58doubts and perplexities here.
00:27:01Perhaps this point of order, its
00:27:04unfolding, can also allow them
00:27:08to be overcome,
00:27:11so that we have an
00:27:14analysis, I would say, within due process
00:27:18well emphasized. In reinforcement of
00:27:21what was said by Your Excellency, I
00:27:24recall that in a decision delivered by Your Excellency on
00:27:27September 12, 2026, it was
00:27:31the decision in which Your Excellency assumes the
00:27:34rapporteurship
00:27:36of the Pet
00:27:40that is being judged. Your Excellency finishes
00:27:44the decision by saying the following: I quote,
00:27:47"Considering the possibility that the
00:27:51result of the deliberation of PET
00:27:5316662 may lead to the application of
00:27:57article 144,
00:27:59item 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I conclude
00:28:03on the basis of article 3 of the internal rules of the Supreme Court, the secretariat
00:28:06is to substitute the rapporteurship of PET
00:28:0916 662 to the presidency of the
00:28:13Federal Supreme Court." Well,
00:28:17assuming the rapporteurship of this petition, expressly
00:28:20indicates the possibility of here the
00:28:24recognition of the suspicion of the
00:28:27eminent Minister André Mendonça. Now, if this possibility
00:28:31exists. hypothetically, it was
00:28:34put forward by Your Excellency, it seems
00:28:37to me that judging or analyzing here
00:28:41the beginning, an authorization for investigation without knowing if the
00:28:45suspicion will or will not be recognized,
00:28:48would be a logical inversion of procedural
00:28:51acts, especially since the recognition of
00:28:55suspicion, as we know, it
00:28:58may also have legal
00:29:00consequences.
00:29:03So, Mr. President, this is a crucial fact for
00:29:06me also to accept the point
00:29:09of order, it is not possible for us to deliberate
00:29:13on something that is, so to speak, still
00:29:16subject to verification,
00:29:20whether these acts were carried out legitimately or
00:29:23if, as Your Excellency stated, the
00:29:27Court will recognize and apply article
00:29:29144 of the Civil
00:29:33Procedure Code or similar to the Criminal Procedure Code, I am not here
00:29:37anticipating a position, I am just
00:29:39here, based on what Your
00:29:43Excellency stated in the decision I just
00:29:46read, saying that we have to follow a logic
00:29:49of procedural acts, so this
00:29:53meeting that was here of
00:29:56procedures that was here raised in the point of
00:29:59order from Minister Flávio Dino and
00:30:02raised by Minister Gilmar Mendes, I think
00:30:06it can also allow
00:30:10this logical ,
00:30:13procedural sequence to be observed.
00:30:16Furthermore, Mr. President,
00:30:19I also include as
00:30:23a note in my vote that it was
00:30:26scheduled, regardless of the flaws,
00:30:29already argued by the eminent Minister Flávio Dino, the petition
00:30:3316.0062,
00:30:36and I have here the full text of this PET,
00:30:39and the only requests that are contained in
00:30:43this PET were formulated by the
00:30:47Attorney General of the Republic in a statement
00:30:50presented by Your Excellency on
00:30:53September 1, 2026. And
00:30:56here, unless I am mistaken.