Brian Paddock oral history, 1991

Focuses on his work for CRLA and later in Tennessee. Gives flavor of informal early days in legal services.

Oral history details

Storyteller: Brian Paddock
Interviewer: Dahn, Tamara
Date of interview: Oct 31, 1991
Where relates to: Arizona, California, and Tennessee
Topics: Civil legal aid: General
Law type: Civil
Collection: NEJL
Georgetown Law Library link (possible video):
Length: 0:41:09

Full text of transcript

Download PDF: Transcript

Georgetown University Law Center
National Equal Justice Library
Oral History Collection
Interview with: Brian Paddock
Conducted by: Tamara Dahn
Interview date: October 31, 1991

Tamara Dahn: This is an interview with Brian Paddock and today is Halloween, October 31, 1991 and we’re doing this in Portland, Oregon. I’m Tamara Dahn and I’m conducting the interview. Now Brian you would like to tell us a little bit something about yourself?

Brian Paddock: Well I’ve been doing legal services for about 25 years. When I graduated from Georgetown Law school I first went to work with California Rural Legal Assistance and worked for a few months in the McFarland office.

Tamara Dahn: Could you tell us where McFarland is.

Brian Paddock: Yes, down in the central valley near Delano, everybody knows were Delano is.

Tamara Dahn: Now why would they know where Delano is?

Brian Paddock: But Bakersfield I guess is the nearest landmark and, McFarland was a little tiny farm town and I’ve actually got a story I would like to tell you about why CRLA wound up with an office in McFarland. From CRLA I spent three years there most of the time later on in Gilroy which is now a suburb I guess of San Jose and then moved to Western Center and began their lobby office in 1972 and was their chief and for most of the time sole lobbyist for about five years. Spent a couple of years after that consulting and training as a consultant to the Corporation and under various contracts including some work on Proposition 13 effects on health care and county welfare. And then thereafter had a checkered career coming back to Tennessee to help start an expansion program working in several programs in Tennessee and eventually by way of Arizona being back in California for a few years at legal services in northern California.

Tamara Dahn: Can you step back a little bit and tell us why you became involved in legal aid work in the first place.

Brian Paddock: Well I decided to go to law school out of a desire to afflict the comfortable and actually had a run-in when I was in college with some administrators at school which made me decide that one needed credentials to deal with bureaucrats who thought they had authority and I decided that a law degree was probably the handiest kind of credential since I was no good at math or science or languages that also contributed and during law school I did work as a law student on civil rights issues, I was with the Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, spent one summer in the south, the summer after the freedom summer doing civil rights work and would actually go down on weekends and holidays to work on voting rights cases and so on. And I knew people I knew later in legal services Don Cates who was the first person ever to received the outstanding legal services lawyer of the year award which has gone through some permutations since then and had the first legal services case ever to reach the United States Supreme Court was at Yale while I was at Georgetown and we did civil rights work together and when I finally managed to get out of law school having finished a master’s degree he asked me to come and join him at CRLA. I started my . . . career at that point.

Tamara Dahn: So tell us what attracted you to CRLA you and other people like Don Cates, why CRLA.

Brian Paddock: Well first of all it was a chance to work with Don and we had worked together, although we hadn’t been doing legal work, we had riding around in the countryside trying to deal with some of the legal aspects of the efforts to do voter registration. I had gone to college in California so California was home territory for me. And I really knew I did not want to go into the private practice of law. If they had not invented legal services I’m not sure I would have ever practiced law. Luckily the creation of the Office of Economic Opportunity legal services activities came at about the time I was coming out of law school and it was the only real opportunity in law that I looked at or thought about. One of the things I liked about CRLA quite frankly was the informality of the interviewing process.

Tamara Dahn: Who interviewed you?

Brian Paddock: Well Jim Lorenz who founded CRLA he first flew back and had visited Sargent Shriver when he ran OEO and made the first proposal for a large statewide rurally oriented legal services program which California Rural Legal Assistance. He was there, two or three of the other CRLA senior legal people who had gone on to become they were state agency chiefs and general counsel under the Jerry Brown administration and so forth. Basically what I did I flew to Los Angeles, I saw Don, we went out to his house in Venice, Los Angeles, which if people know their geography had a small community sense as well as these kind of interesting canals and had something to eat and so forth and then it became later in the evening and Carol Ruth Silver who later went on to become the director of the Berkeley legal services program and has long time been a supervisor in San Francisco, Carol Ruth Silver came over and brought a tray of brownies and Don and I took the tray of brownies and went over to see the senior CRLA folks and sat around and ate the brownies and I had not had any experience with Alice . . . brownies and it made for a very interestingly relaxed interview session. I think they also had a few beers, I was trying to stay straight, I thought this was a serious job interview and the conclusion of it was that they said they had been glad to meet me and if Don wanted me to come work with him in what was going to be the Gilroy office of the California Rural Legal Assistance I was welcome aboard. And that was that. We do it a lot differently these days, I can assure you, this is for historical flavor. We now have very thoughtful systematic and testing ways of going about hiring people. I wouldn’t have made it through the current system.

Tamara Dahn: Well you did make it through the current system you got interviewed in Sacramento the second time. Can you tell us a little bit about what the Gilroy office was like? What was it like, was there an office?

Brian Paddock: There was actually an office because about the same time that I went to Gilroy CRLA moved its main offices from Los Angeles to San Francisco and by the way one interesting experiment it did in the early days when it was headquartered in Los Angeles was to put is chief deputy director who was Gary Bellow not in its main office with the rest of its leadership people but out running the McFarland office and I got to McFarland after Gary left but I rented the little tiny wood frame house in the middle of a cotton field that Gary and his wife had lived in. And to this day I don’t know of any place where they take their deputy director and make sure he is at least 100 miles away from the main office. I did a quick stint in McFarland because they had gone from five lawyers to one overnight and needed some help there and then I went up to Gilroy. And Gilroy had previously existed and had actually been run by Bill and Lucy McCabe. Bill McCabe is a senior partner in a very prestigious San Francisco law firm and Lucy has been on the Superior Court bench for a number of years.

Tamara Dahn: She does a good imitation of the rabbit that is in one of those battery ads.

Brian Paddock: They were practicing law together and they had come out of a background in the civil rights division of the Department of Justice in the civil rights era and they were very effective, hard-charging lawyers. Unfortunately there was almost no overlap in the turnout. Don showed up and Lucy and Bill said, in fact Lucy and Bill may not have even been there, I’m not sure there was a handshake and a good luck I think they may have even been relocated to San Francisco for some other activities by then. The continuity in the office was provided quite frankly by the support staff and by the CRLA community workers who knew the community and were able to introduce us to community groups and the two counties in which we worked. And Don at that point was busy working on the appellate phase of a brief I can’t remember what it was but I remember he wrote this enormous brief where he went back and analyzed the history of discrimination against aliens in California and one of the interesting things in that office was to come into his office and see huge piles of very ancient newspapers, duplicates of newspapers from the Gold Rush days and from the days of the construction of the railroad because he was showing the xenophobia that California had had in the way it was treating non-English-speaking persons, the Chinese and Hispanics and so on. And it was interesting to watch him put together a brief which was a Brandies brief and was persuasive that the context of a given statute was what it really was about and that it was invalid because it had been ill-motivated as well as being problematic on its face. But we went out and did a lot of other things besides that case. We worked

Tamara Dahn: What types of did you do organization, community organization or litigation?

Brian Paddock: Yes we did. There was an organization that had been formed in Hollister in San Benito County called the San Benito Consumers Co-Op and it was not a consumers co-op and in fact I later found out it violated California law to call yourself a co-op if you weren’t one. But this was a group of farm workers of seasonal farm workers who had come together and at first been helped to come together by the community workers in CRLA. This was I think has always been perfectly appropriate it was at that point obviously real and Bob Ganeza who went on later fame in California was coming over from the Salinas office been working with these folks and when I first to visit with the San Benito Consumers Co-op and meet the leadership and so on they said well are you going to help us the way Bob helped us and they had gone through a big fight to try to get food stamps into the county because in those days food stamps was not a mandatory program and the were providing commodities. Commissioners didn’t want to hear about it, county supervisors didn’t want to hear about food stamps. And I said well I’ll try to do what Bob did, what did he do and they said when we have a demonstration if you go jail I will go to jail with you and

Tamara Dahn: Did Bob actually go to jail?

Brian Paddock: Bob never had to go to jail but they wanted to know if I would be held to his pledge of solidarity with them. And luckily I never had to fulfill that pledge but in my salad days was willing to make it. And actually they had won the fight to get food stamps in the county at that point and were going on to fight for other issues. And it was very interesting over the years I worked, three years I worked at CRLA because just before I left I happened to go down to a supervisor’s meeting on another matter that didn’t have to do with the consumer co-op and I was sitting there as the supervisors were going through their agenda waiting for my item to come and John Zamora who was the president of the San Benito Consumer Co-op and who had been a hated and reviled person a few years ago in that community walked into the supervisor’s chamber in the meeting and just quietly stood there for a moment and the chairman of the board of supervisors looked and said hello Mr. Zamora let us stop and hear what you have to say. And John was not being officious I mean this was a real sign of the respect that he and the organization had fought for and had won in the community. And it made a tremendous difference to people in how they were treated by the welfare department and how they were treated by public officials because they continued to stand up for themselves. It was also very difficult and this was all done by the way in days when the farm workers union existed but did not operate in that county. This was an independent organization of people.

Tamara Dahn: How do you think things have changed since that time?

Brian Paddock: Well I think one of the sad changes has been the restrictions to trying to tell legal services offices that they are only to work with community groups in sort of lawyering capacity and we still write by-laws and get tax exemptions and all that kind of thing but getting fairness for people and getting access to the political and economic processes of decisions I think we all know require advocacy that isn’t always done in courtrooms and it requires people thinking through what they’re about and how they are going to go about it and what they want to say and what the good arguments are for it. And I think the people are quite capable of doing that but I think those of us who come from backgrounds where we are taught those skills and those methods of analysis have always had the duty and ought to have the clear legal right to sit with our clients and do the same thing that corporate counsel would so with their clients. I mean nobody would say that the corporate counsel to a trade association could not talk to them about how to lobby, how to make their argument, what is the most effective way to present their position and yet there are interpretations of the federal regulations the LSC regulations that say we were not to do that for poor people and I don’t think that’s the American way that some lawyers can’t do what other lawyers can do.

Tamara Dahn: Can you talk a little bit more about your experience in working with the legislature or how you got involved, weren’t you one of the first folks to do that?

Brian Paddock: Uh huh. It was in some ways by happenstance. I was ready for a change although I was enjoying doing what we called impact and class action litigation that we did, which by the way we did with he consent and permission of the community. But it was time to learn something else and Western Center happened to get a small grant of discretionary money through the regional office of the Legal Services Corporation and Terry Hatter ran Western Center at that point and I had happened to see Terry who I did know well at an NLADA meeting the year before in San Antonio and I said to Terry I had a rumor that you are talking about setting up a legislative office which California Rural Legal Assistance had set one up just about that time and he said yeah if I can find somebody I think I will and I said if you do that I would like to talk to you about working in that office. So the money came through at some point, it was a very small amount of money $50,000 or something but of course since I worked for a fraction of that in those days why it seemed like a lot of money. And so Terry flew me down to LA and we talked and he said well what do you know about this stuff. And I said gee I don’t know anything about it but the CRLA lawyer is already there and I have talked to him and we’ll make an arrangement to put our offices right next to each other in the same building and I will learn from him, this fellow I knew

TN: Who was that?

Brian Paddock: I’m trying to remember who, Ed Kerry was there I think it was somebody else at the time I’m blanking on the name.

Tamara Dahn: It wasn’t Ralph Abescow

Brian Paddock: No, no. And I will learn how to do this and since there was nobody else he was able to hire off the streets that he knew and cared about the issues and had lobbying skills because there was no lobbying core in legal services or in the public interest lobbying community was extremely small. The only other public interest lobby besides CRLA was the Friends Committee on Legislation, the women’s groups, civil rights groups, Hispanic groups and so forth that really not created a presence in Sacramento. So he says okay go do it so I moved up to Sacramento and established this shared office space arrangement with CRLA. And luckily found Emma Gunterman and Emma Gunterman it’s unfair to say she’s Joe Gunterman’s wife, because she was an independent force in their own right, Joe was the then lobbyist for the Friends Committee on Legislation and had done that for a number of years and was certainly extremely well respected lobbyist. Emma had on her own hook taken up issues she cared about and had learned from Joe and spent a lot of time in the legislature and so she taught me the rules of lobbying and I have always called these Emma’s rules and the first one is first skill a lobbyist has to have is you have to be able to count, if you can’t count your votes forget about it and then she taught me what the real skill of counting is, you figure out by talking to people and by knowing something about them who is on your side on a given thing. Who is probably unalterably opposed to what you want to do, who are the people in the middle that you must persuade. And your job is to count the votes between the committed and the can be persuaded to move your bill through committee and then through the floor and do it again. She never did quite tell me all the magic ways to get the one vote at the end since the governor’s one vote on signing a bill is equal to everything you’ve done up to that point. But Ed Kerry as the CRLA lobbyist and I figured out a little bit of that ourselves and I lobbied while Ronald Reagan was governor and actually got he signed the first five bills that the juvenile law task force of Western Center put together that I lobbied through. He signed five of them and I think there were a couple of others we got through that he vetoed and we learned how to go into the governor’s staff and make arguments on the merits of the legislation and convince them that there were injustices being done and when you weren’t trying to move around huge amounts of money or shift political power, economic power dramatically why that what I all white glove lobbying based on information and personal integrity was very effective. It gets harder and harder of course when you get to more and more significant issues.

Tamara Dahn: How do you see how things have changed since that time?

Brian Paddock: Well the level of polarity in the legislature I’m told by people who do it now and some of my own more recent experiences in California is much greater. There are commitments to ideological positions that are much stronger particularly among conservative forces. And so finding that group of people in the middle who can respond to information and persuasion and appeal to the rightness of a thing even if it is unpopular or there is a lobby on the other side that middle group is smaller and smaller, and I think people on no matter issues they lobby on and whether it’s public interest or private will tell you that that middle group is smaller, and that when you need to get your votes from that and not from the previously committed group you have more and more trouble in this legislation so that’s one thing that is different. Also legal services is now trying to do things that are much more difficult. First of all it’s gone through a long period with very conservative Republican governor George Deukmejian which meant that could put in enormous amounts of efforts in the legislature and still not get an active legislation. And you are dealing with a situation where things like welfare grant levels and the fairness of welfare programs and providing money and initiatives for low income housing is very, very difficult in a post-Proposition 13 context where the state doesn’t have surpluses and in fact now has enormous deficits and where the counties local governments have been broke for a long time because of property tax restriction. It’s very different when you’re moving things around on the margin the appeal to fairness and the appeal to the fact that you’ve got some money and some of it ought to go to these just causes is very different than when you’re saying sorry there isn’t enough for anybody to go around and you have to compete directly with education and prisons and every other basic service and activity that the state and local governments undertake. And I don’t know whether I just don’t know how long it’s going to be in our society before we get back to a place where government is in a position where it can respond to that without having to make those hard resource decisions. And I think quite frankly it’s a tribute to legal services people today that they succeed even in a situation where there must be losers as well as winners where it’s not that somebody brings out a new pie and you get to cut the slices in different sizes, your slice of pie comes from somebody else’s share and if that is a main dish pie and not a dessert pie then you really hurt them and there are some brutal fights that go on and there is also a dynamic in the legislature and in the administration sometimes to turn the public interest people against one another to say if you get better welfare grants we’re going to cut back the foster care program or we will cut back youth services some places else or we will cut back health care and it’s a pretty disgraceful performance and a very difficult situation to work in.

Tamara Dahn: You were one of the early people who felt that the war on poverty was going to have a sort of time limit, that if you were in legal services for ten years and I think Sargent Shriver was among those people who felt that you know a little bit of energy and many of the problems of poverty would be resolved.

Brian Paddock: Well I thought we could make a lot of progress and certainly the early generations of advocacy when governments had surpluses when the conservative ideology and the no new taxes ideology had not gained the same control and so forth and where the courts after a certain amount of pounding were willing to entertain the idea that there was a body of law that protected poor people as well as better off people. Those were exciting times because you could gain significant ground with an expenditure of effort and that has really changed. I’m not sure that I ever believed that the war on poverty was going to be won because my fundamental conviction is that we have a society that has very entrenched areas of wealth and economic and political power and that those do not concede to redistribution very easily and that law is one mechanism of redistribution, a part of the law which legal services does very little of this is one of the more powerful mechanisms but also the most controversial which is tax law and the redistribution.

Tamara Dahn: That was always Bob Geneza’s theory that legal services would not make an impact until it became involved in tax law.

Brian Paddock: And we did some of that and I actually did some outside of legal services. I spent a couple of years during one break from legal services, one short break, working with the California Tax Reform Association and quite frankly trying to do an initiative to preempt Proposition 13 and so on. I still have that feeling that until I don’t know that legal services is ever going to do tax work but until we have a more just tax system that takes from those takes discretionary income from those who have a great ability to pay in order to maintain minimum subsistence for those who have nothing that that’s a fairer tax system. But most folks that have high incomes claim that they earned it, or in some cases, stole it fair and square and it’s theirs and shouldn’t be redistributed. But I’m not sure we are going to get, we have to keep working on democracy, democracy doesn’t work very well. People don’t vote, people don’t believe in electoral politics, electoral politics may not be affecting the issues that touch the lives of people working people and poor people and the economic processes are not doing very well. The first candidate for a toxic waste dump is usually a low income neighborhood or a very poor rural county, so we’ve got a long way to go and I’m not sure I ever knew that it was going to be a lifetime of work but I think I knew that lawyers and lawyering were going to work in a middle ground and the middle ground that has gotten narrower but the fundamental injustices are going to have to come through political and economic changes where the lawyers are going to be the after-the-fact writers of the documents not the initiators of the changes.

Tamara Dahn: You were also involved very much with the expansion of legal services to under-served parts of the country. Can you discuss that a little bit.

Brian Paddock: Well in ’78 I was looking for a change of pace and my personal life changed a lot and it was the days when the Corporation had gotten the new funding formula to allow the expansion of services to all the counties in the country and I happened on a I was taking a vacation in Michigan visiting my mother and looked into the Clearinghouse and they were looking for a project director in south central Tennessee and I remembered the middle south as being a place I liked to be during the civil rights days, and it had racism and sexism and ugliness and poverty but it also had a sense of community and a sense of compassion and churches and organizations where people cared about one another that I thought was the kind of communities that I enjoying living in and working with so I went down and interviewed with this kind of ad hoc board of directors, the legal services of south central Tennessee.

Tamara Dahn: There were no brownies this time.

Brian Paddock: There were no brownies, we did have to bring our flasks with us and pour the whiskey into our iced tea glasses and I must say the chair of the board of directors, a young woman attorney there was very disciplined about making sure the flask always came along. These were all dry counties so you had to bring your own and nobody cared and it was legal liquor but they couldn’t pour it for you. But we talked about legal services and I probably didn’t say things that are quite as radical as I’ve said here right now but I talked about helping people and what I thought was involved and they decided I had enough background, had worked in enough different places and so forth that they would let me start a program. So we did and set up two offices and hired some staff and made one really terrible mistake. We wanted a legal services that was different than other programs. We wanted a program that from the beginning would work with people and with client groups and the program in fact in its early days did that even before we had our second office opened people in the first office were working with black parents to get better access to the policies in the schools and they formed an organization called the School Monitoring and Reform Team and they all had buttons with little red schoolhouses that said SMART and that kind of thing along with setting up a decent law library because you got your first month’s grant and you didn’t have a bunch of people drawing salaries and so you had money to buy law books and equipment and so forth and so on. It was very exciting and I enjoyed it a lot but we tried to do too many different things. We tried to have a very democratic office and so we were willing to change too many things at one time. We tried to have a different kind of mission and a different kind of approach than many legal services offices and we were willing to rethink all the roles, the management role and the advocacy roles and the relationship between attorneys and non-attorneys and so forth. We wanted to reinvent the wheel because we wanted a different wheel and in retrospect we created too much uncertainty, too much ambiguity, too many things to do deal with, with a group of people that hadn’t previously tried to do it, and in fact those people had been trying had been thing, other things together for many years and then tried this as a project it might have worked although it would have been difficult and dicey and I learned about perhaps not as well as I should have but I learned about the amount of change people can take and the processes that need to happen and the value of kind of doing one thing at a time.

Tamara Dahn: You are now at sort of the cutting edge of the technological folks in legal services. Can you talk a little how that feels.

Brian Paddock: Well I got curious about computers and the penalty for curiosity in legal services is that one is then charged with a mission of finding out enough about it that one can become something of a leader and a guru and I never felt that I was much of a guru in that area but after I learned a little bit about computers and the legal services of northern California and Victor had a very, very clever trap where they give you a interest-free loan to buy a computer and software and so forth and they take it back a little bit out of your paycheck. Well then you’ve got to home every night and bash around on it and you know if you love to play games and stuff which I didn’t why I suppose you could come back knowing nothing that is useful to the office but in fact I came back knowing a little bit and it was about the time the office needed to go through an upgrade of all its computerization so I shepherded that. The other thing is the electronic network and . . . and this is the really exciting thing and to have an electronic bulletin board that has enormous amounts of information not just from the national support centers but now has state folders, has information from national clearinghouse, 200-300 items a month, as much as 2-3 months ahead of time, of the time it comes out in hard copy, has an electronic mail system so one can co-counsel almost without regard to physical distances and get documents back and forth without faxing and overnight mail and so forth. That’s all been very exciting and I think we’re now kind of over the hump we’ve passed that minimum number of users that it makes it possible, it’s sort of like you have the fist phone in town and who did you call for a while some of were like that, we had the first phones in town and there weren’t very many people to talk to.

Tamara Dahn: Although it was nice because you didn’t have to remember a lot of numbers you know.

Brian Paddock: Well the program has an address book and you can put all that in but the other very important value of . . . is that it is gives legal services a chance to re-integrate with the broader advocacy community. It was started by people who weren’t legal services it was started by anti-hunger and anti-homelessness advocates through Hands Across America and now it has children and youth people, it has mental health people, it has housing finance agencies, it has institutions that are concerned about all these issues as well as providers and counselors and so forth. And it gives us a chance to communicate and to keep track of issues and activities that are of very broad concern to those who think we are not in a society that is just economically and politically as it might be and that’s very valuable. So you turn on the computer and it’s all there you don’t have to worry about spending a lot of scarce legal services money to subscribe to a lot of publications and so forth to keep in touch with these same kinds of things.

Tamara Dahn: In sort of coming to a conclusion on this, can you give some advice to people listening. What kind of advice would you give them about legal aid or maybe you could do some future think I don’t know what

Brian Paddock: I think one of the most important things that I have come to through legal services is to keep your faith in clients. It’s very easy when you do legislative advocacy and you don’t see the client whose problem caused someone to want a bill or when you’re doing a major class action and you only talk to the one or two people who are the lead name plaintiffs to remember all those other folks out there. But ultimately if we are going to deal with the problems of poverty and powerlessness the people who are ultimately affected have to do that and they have to have a say so and as a lawyer you need to listen to them not because the canon of professional responsibility say that the client ultimately has control although that’s obviously a critical factor, but because achieving justice has to do with the sense of power to make decisions, power to speak up and power to come together that clients have and I think that’s the other thing is to always talk to clients about coming together. One of the things I always talk about when clients come to me with problems and I say are there other folks and they say oh yes there are other folks and I say well could we have a deal where you have them all over one evening for coffee and I’ll stop by and we’ll just talk about this. And I’m not under the Legal Services Corporation regulations now and I do a lot of that with clients and I do a lot of that in my home community and it’s a way the rest of things in society work as the people come together to speak up for what’s important to them and I think in legal services we need to rediscover the importance of talking with our clients and helping them recognize that when problems cut across and they most often do and they are not just confined to one person but people need to come together and address those problems and sometimes those will be legal answers. The other thing that goes with that is not to turn the problems over just to the lawyer, I really I work on child support litigation, I really don’t want a situation where the parents who can’t get effective child support enforcement says well the lawyers will take care of this they will file enough big law suits, that eventually the state will have to operate this program properly and the public officials will have to respond. It’s much better for the parents to do what they have been doing before there were any lawyers around on this issue and say we are coming together, we are mothers and parents and our kids need this and we’re going to go to the newspapers and we are going to have meetings and we’re going to walk around up in front of the DA’s office and we’re going to have candlelight vigils and we’re going to speak for ourselves and our children’s needs, and I think if we get in the way of that or discourage it or fail to help it happen within the legal limits of what we can allow to happen, that we will have lost the most important tool because as I see society courtrooms are less and less the place to make social change, legislatures are a difficult place to make social change because of financial reasons and political polarization and we’ve have got to get back to people speaking up and saying their peace and saying that those institutions and other institutions that make decisions get reopened.

Tamara Dahn: Okay, thank you. Do you have anything else you would like to end this with, final words?

Brian Paddock: No we had probably better stop here, my stomach is going to start grumbling and we won’t have any sound.

Tamara Dahn: Okay, thank you very much Brian Paddock.