➡ Peggy Hall from thehealthyamerican.org discusses a lawsuit against the National Park Service for refusing to accept cash payments. She explains that the National Park Service has gone cashless, which she believes is harmful and limits people’s freedom of choice. The lawsuit argues that the National Park Service is violating federal law by not accepting cash, which is legal tender for all public charges. Peggy also raises questions about the integrity of the lawsuit and the motivations of the plaintiffs.
➡ Toby, a facial rejuvenation practitioner from New York, and Elizabeth Dasberg are two plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the National Park Service. They claim the service is breaking U.S. law by not accepting cash payments. The Children’s Health Defense is financially supporting their case. The lawsuit has sparked debate about the authenticity of the plaintiffs and the motivations behind the lawsuit.
➡ This text talks about how big law firms often look for people to sue big companies for lots of money, even if those people weren’t really harmed. It gives an example of a lawsuit against the national park system, where people were asked to pretend they wanted to visit the parks and then sue because the parks didn’t accept cash. The text also mentions a similar situation where a lawyer had a disabled man check into small hotels that didn’t have equipment for disabled people, then sue the hotels. The author of the text thinks these kinds of lawsuits are dishonest and wrong.
➡ Ray Flores from California has filed a lawsuit in federal court, asking the judge to declare that certain individuals’ rights were violated and that the National Park Service (NPS) should accept cash. The details of the lawsuit’s costs, including whether Flores is working for free or if the plaintiffs will pay him, are unclear. The speaker expresses skepticism about the lawsuit’s legitimacy and encourages integrity in such matters. The speaker also appreciates the support of their community and their help in paying off legal bills.

Hey, friends, Peggy hall, back with you from thehealthyamerican. org. Let’s dig into this lawsuit that is against the National park service for refusing to accept cash. Now, about three weeks ago, I did this video called national Parks ban Cash, and I have a substac about it as well. This is my substac. It’s peggyhall substac. com. And here is where I have the video on YouTube. A quick reminder that when you look for my past videos, let’s go to my channel right here.

Be sure you’re subscribed. You need to click on videos, and then you also need to click on live. I’ve got tons of my videos. Most of my videos are streamed live. So if you want to see everything, don’t just go to home, because YouTube is going to show you some of these old videos from seven months ago or longer. So go to videos and then also go to live.

And that will help you see exactly what I’ve been toiling away to bring you. Now, when I heard about this lawsuit exactly a week ago that was filed against the National park service, I was applauding it. I still am. I think it’s fantastic that people are taking legal action to hold the public serpent’s feet to the fire. And before we’re going to talk about that and then stick with me, because there’s a little bit of a peculiarity with this lawsuit that I’ve not heard anyone else speak about.

And it does put me in mind of a couple of different situations that I know about. I’ll get to those personal stories in just a moment, but what I want to show you is this. We’re going to look at the National Park Service, and as a reminder, they have announced that most of their parks are going to be cashless again. I covered this in detail in a previous video.

Suffice it to say that you are no longer able to pay cash for your entry fee. They said that it was too expensive and it was far too difficult for them to do the accounting, and they are going cashless now. I also did a video just a couple of days ago about the harms of going cashless. In fact, it was just one point in many things that I recommend that you do is to not go cashless.

Use cash as often as possible. I will do some follow up videos, and I want to share with you a very clever little short movie about this incrementalism creeping in with taking away your cash and why that’s so harmful. If you like to have no cash and you want to use a card, that’s up to you, but it should be up to you. And I find it very infuriating and also very curious that the federal government is ushering in this cashless system by sort of a benign national park service.

It’s like, hey, let’s go to Yosemite. And then you’re like, oh, no, you can’t come in. Actually, that’s just one example. So here’s what’s interesting. Let me share my screen, and we’re going to hop right on over to let me show you again. Here is the national park service, and there are all sorts of hundreds and hundreds of monuments and national parks that you can visit, but apparently you have to have cash.

So what happened is a lawsuit was, here we go. I think this is it. Yes, a lawsuit was filed just on March 6 of 2024. So this is basically a week ago. There are three plaintiffs. And this lawsuit is very short. I’m going to bring to you, to your attention. Let me increase it in size a little bit if I can do that. So that you can. And if not, I will just let’s see if I can.

Sorry, friends. All right. So I can take you through this. And before I do that, let me just reframe what it is that I’m talking about here. I applaud action that is being taken. I think it’s fantastic when people are standing up for their rights. And as you’ll see how the story unfolds a little bit, I find it a little peculiar how this whole lawsuit came around. And that’s where I would like to get your opinion as to whether or not you think that’s fine or whether or not it’s lacking a little bit of integrity, to use a better word.

All right. So here we go. Let me bring you through the lawsuit. It’s very short, and I will just bring you some of the highlights. So there’s a woman from Ohio. Now, Ohio is right next to Santa Barbara, California. That will become important in a little bit when I explain why. These are all women, by the way. And from the way I was able to see, I found some of them on social media.

And I’ll share that with you in just a moment. Toby Stover, Elizabeth Dasberg. So somebody from California, from New York and Georgia. This is also important when I show this to you in just a moment. What the attorney is doing is asking for declaratory relief. That means that a judge is going to rule that the National Park Service is wrong and that they are required to receive cash as a form of payment.

So here we go. There is a little bit of an introduction here that the National Park Service no longer accepts american money at approximately 29 national parks. Actually, I believe it’s quite a bit more than that, but that’s what they have cited right here. And then they state that US currency is legal tender for all public charges pursuant to 31 US code section 5103. I find it very, very compelling on the side of the attorney that they did note that this would be a public charge.

Right? We’re the public, and there’s a charge by this public office or agency, and we should be able to use cash for this. So I like the clever strategy. I’m all in favor of that. It says the National Park Service denies those without bank accounts and the underbanked households without credit cards, as well as the plaintiffs asserting their lawful right to pay in cash. So I agree. I think that the National Park Service and all federal and state and county and city, any government location agency should be required to accept cash.

So the places that are at question here in this suit include the organ pipe cactus National Monument in the Sonoran Desert, the Tonto National Monument, also in the Sonoran Desert, the Sagoro, I think that’s the pronunciation, national park. And the Roosevelt Vanderbilt in Hyde Park, New York, comprised of three historic sites, including the home of Franklin D. Roosevelt. You know how I feel about Roosevelt. I already did a video about him anyway.

And then there is Fort Pulaski in Savannah, Georgia. All right, so it says that the plaintiffs asserted, keep in mind the language here, their lawful right to tender cash to enter. And the National Park Service is violating federal law because there is no purported benefit to this cashless system. They are saying that they’re going to reduce logistics of handling cash, but there’s also an increased cost to the National Park Service going cashless, including additional processing fees, et cetera, et cetera.

They go on to say that the jurisdiction in the venue is proper, and then they talk about the parties. Now, I want to just stop for a moment, because I was looking at the headlines, and I want to share a couple of these headlines with you. And this is where just a little, I like to go to the direct source. I’m not just looking at the headlines, but I want to show you what the headlines are saying so that we can dig a little deeper.

So let me grab this. I tried to search into social media to see if I could find these people. So one person I did find. Let me share my screen. And this is public so I have no problem sharing it. And this is the first plaintiff listed that think that’s so cute, this little picture of the doggies. And there’s Esther VanderWerf. Now, it turns out that she’s an author of a book called, or an author of a program called Optimal Eyesight and read without glasses at any age.

I’ve not looked into that, but there we have it. So you can see that she is a supporter of RFK Jr. And that’s going to come into play in just a moment. And she’s in Ohio. Ohio is basically the neighboring little bit inland of Santa Barbara. Hop, skip and jump away, 30 minutes, give or take, depending on the traffic and the direction that you take. Here’s another one, a quote from Robert F.

Kennedy Jr. Another reason why I think RFK Jr. Will be a great president. So we can look at her feed and we can see that she is not only into animals and animal rescue, but she also is a supporter of Robert F. Kennedy. That’s going to be important in just a moment. So what I looked to see about other plaintiffs, I could not really find any social media footprint for them.

However, I did find. Oops. Here, let me queue this up for you. Okay. I did find that the second plaintiff, Toby here, is a practitioner of facial rejuvenation. And that is in New York. All right. This is going to be important in the story in just a moment. So we’ve got Ohio, California, and we’ve got New York. I do find it interesting that these are women kind of look similar.

I’ll just put it that way. I don’t know if that has anything to do with it, but I just found it. Just a pattern. I noticed patterns and things like that. So she is a facial rejuvenation practitioner, a dancer, musician. And I think, here we are. She’s a distributor of the essential oils. All right. Has no bearing on the story whatsoever. I just like to know that these are actual real individuals and maybe have they been activists.

How is it that suddenly they went to the state park and they weren’t able to pay in cash? And then there was one other plaintiff as well. There was one other plaintiff as well, Elizabeth Dasberg, I believe. And I tried to find out more about her story. And this came up on Facebook. I could not find a Facebook page, but there were several mentions of the story. And here’s one.

For example, kudos to Elizabeth Dasberg, a woman we should all respect and admire for her tenacity and bravery in fighting the US government. All right, here we go again. Elizabeth Dasberg and two other plaintiffs allege the National Park Service is violating U. S. Law by refusing to accept U. S. Currency. Children’s health defense is financially backing the lawsuit. I could not find anything more other than let’s applaud Elizabeth Dasberg for her tenacity and bravery in fighting the US government.

And then I found out that the children’s health defense is actually financially supporting the lawsuit. So I did a little extra digging and what I found out, and this is where the story takes a curious turn. Now, I will say that I have no beef with the children’s health defense. They have done a lot of great work in many areas. I do have very legitimate concerns with the inconsistent message of Bobby Kennedy, where many people believe that he is anti jab when in fact he’s not.

I’ve covered that on my program, on this channel. I have an entire playlist called RFK. And my goal is to just help those of you who are supporting him to understand the truth about his position, which is he believes that we should trust the CDC and the FDA and the EPA for that matter, and all of these regulatory agencies. He wants to restore american trust in the government.

That rubs me the wrong way because I don’t have any evidence that we should trust them. And the other thing is that he’s all in favor of what they call the cocktail confidence, like you should be confident in the cocktails as soon as there is enough testing. And that doesn’t sit well with me either. So that I do have an issue with. But in terms of educating people on the harms of the jabs and helping people understand where they can go for help and file these lawsuits, I’m all in favor of it.

Friends, I’ve never said that I wasn’t. I just need to put that on the table because some of y’all, not y’all sophisticated, healthy Americans that have been on board for some time, but some of you get bent out of shape when I show you reality and facts and evidence and it doesn’t match up with what you think your reality, what the reality should be. So just saying, I’m here to inform and educate and empower and encourage you to dig deeper and to learn more.

So that’s exactly what I did. And here’s what I found. This is very, very interesting to me. So we’ve got the woman being applauded for her tenacity and bravery in standing up against the government and. Yeah, absolutely. So here’s what I found when I did my research. Let me take you on over. This is on my substac, and I usually have the substac. Let’s see. I’m filming today, Friday.

So this substack will be published on Monday. And let me share my screen and I’ll give you a little sneak peek. This I saw on the Internet and also on the Children’s health defense website. It says, this is back in November. Children’s health defense seeks New Jersey plaintiffs to oppose national park system cashless program. This is interesting, and I’m going to give you a little bit more on the lawsuit, and then we’re going to say, are you okay with this? Children’s health defense is looking for plaintiffs in New Jersey who wish to visit the Thomas Edison National Historic park in West Orange, New Jersey, who either do not have credit or debit cards or who will pay with cash.

Over the last few years, the National Park Service began implementing a cashless payment program for entrance fees. Approximately 20 sites currently refuse to accept cash as legal tender. And if you would like to apply to be a plaintiff, please complete the form here. And when you click on the form, it has an intake and you can leave your name and phone number and they will contact you. Yes.

Here’s another one. Call for plaintiffs in New Jersey, New York, and Georgia. So exactly how organic and authentic is this lawsuit? It’s not okay. And I’m not saying that that’s necessarily bad, but let’s be transparent about the truth, shall we? Here we go. Three states, New Jersey, New York, and Georgia. Well, apparently they couldn’t get anyone from New Jersey, but they got someone from California, which is in the city of Ohio, which is right next door to Santa Barbara, which is where Robert F.

Kennedy lives. And you saw that. That woman, who is the plaintiff, knows Bobby Kennedy or is a supporter of his because her social media is filled with information about how much she supports him. Here we go. Children’s health defense is looking for plaintiffs who wish to visit the Thomas Edison National Historical park in West Orange, New Jersey. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Didn’t we just hear that? National Historic Site in New York and Fort Pulaski National Monument in Savannah, Georgia, who either do not have credit or debit cards or who pay with cash.

All right, let’s break this down, shall we? I’ll give you my analysis, and I will leave you a link to the exact lawsuit which we’re going to look at in just a moment. But I want to paint the picture for you. Now, I’m in favor of holding the public serpent’s feet to the fire. When I engaged in my lawsuit, which is still ongoing three years later, against the Orange County Board of Supervisors, I was the one personally that brought the lawsuit against the county.

Now, I will tell you this, that I have two other situations here where in 2020, I was contacted by a healthy American who knew a very, how shall I say, aggressive attorney in Los Angeles. Now, I don’t live in Los Angeles, but at that time, we were being told in the freedom movement that LA county was not issuing permits for protest against the suffocation devices. And this attorney wanted me.

Right? He sought me out. He wanted me to, how do I put it, pose. I don’t want to say pretend or like I’m acting, but he wanted me to propose that I was going to do a protest in Los Angeles and then apply for a permit which he believed would be turned down. And now I could be a plaintiff in a lawsuit that he would bring against the county of Los Angeles.

It might have been the city of Los Angeles. Keep in mind, the government has very deep pockets in my lawsuit against the county. I’m not suing for any money. I’m suing for the county to follow the law and to not violate our constitutional republic, our republic form of government. That’s what I’m suing for. It’s a very important case. And this attorney was seeking someone to pose as a person who wanted to have a protest in the streets of LA to then again, as I say, put in for a permit and then be denied, and then I would be the plaintiff and he would sue the city.

Now, I don’t know where the money was going to come from for this lawsuit, because attorneys want to get paid. I guess he thought that it would be a slam dunk and the city would be penalized or the county, and then they would have all this money, I guess, that he would split with me. So what do you think I did? Well, you’re absolutely right. I didn’t do it.

Because as much as I am opposed to the county rejecting permits for protest, I’m also opposed to these fishing expeditions. If there is an authentic, organic, legitimate situation where somebody did that, then, yes, they should sue the county or the city. I’m all in favor of that. But this puts me in mind of, do you have billboards? Maybe not in your state. We have billboards that say, did you slip and fall, make a call? And they’re called ambulance chasers, where they are going after.

And a lot of these class action lawsuits are exactly that. It’s not like a bunch of people said, we’re going to go sue Apple or Verizon. Oh, no. These big attorney law firms will actually solicit. That’s, I think what bothers me the most, they are soliciting these plaintiffs so that they can then go after at and T or whatever for millions and millions and millions of dollars, and then you get like $0.

20 because you were one of millions of people who were a part of this class action lawsuit, and it wasn’t really that you were harmed. Now maybe you were. I don’t want to draw a broad swath saying that every single one of these solicited cases is orchestrated and contrived, kind of like a sting operation. I don’t think all of them are, but I’m going to show you, I just showed you evidence that this one against the national park system is.

So my estimation or my respect for these plaintiffs has come down a couple of notches because they were solicited. There was like an email or a promotional message going out asking for people to pose as individuals that wanted to go visit these parks. Now it gets better because two of them didn’t even go to the parks. They didn’t even go to the parks. They emailed the national park system and said, will you accept cash? And they got an email back saying, no, we don’t accept cash.

And that’s the basis for this lawsuit. For two out of three of the plaintiffs, that’s not kosher in my book. I’m not jewish. I don’t know if that’s the right phrase. That’s not okay in my book. That’s underhanded. I think that there can be legitimate people, legitimate cases where people went. And I know I can already hear you saying, well, they don’t know how to find an attorney.

And it doesn’t matter how it was done as long as they’re not going to be cashless. That’s your opinion. My opinion is different. I told you I had two examples. My other example, right, Laguna Beach, California. Orange County, California. Right. My stomping grounds. And there was a case, and it may not have just been limited to Orange county. I’ll have to do a little more digging. You probably have heard of this kind of sting operation as well.

Let me share my screen and I’ll tell you exactly what I’m talking about. So you’ve got situations like this where it’s a federal law, as well as states have their own laws where public places have to have Ada, American with Disabilities act compliant pool lifts. So this looks like a public pool in a community. This helps somebody who needs help to get in and out of the water.

I think that’s fantastic. I’m all in favor. I’m a swimmer. I teach water exercise classes. I was a water polo player. I got to tell you that story when I was on the boys water polo team, only I wasn’t pretending to be a boy, all right. Back in junior high, because I was faster and stronger than the boys were at that time. Wow. $6,000. Here’s another one, the pool lift, as it’s called.

So I think this is fantastic. This looks like it’s in maybe an apartment building or something like that. Now, in my condominium complex, there is nothing like that because it’s not really a public location, but the public places are required to have these. So here was the sting operation. It’s important to understand it because I’m drawing a parallel, I personally am drawing a parallel to this, suing the national parks.

So here it goes. Under these circumstances, there was a slimy attorney or an attorney who was using slimy tactics, I’ll put it that way, who had a plaintiff, a disabled man, and they would intentionally go and check in or have this man check in at small family owned hotels in southern California. These are not the Marriotts and the Holiday inns and the Hiltons and all of that. These are the little local lodges and inns that have a little pool, probably from the 1960s, and some of them did not have this compliant piece of equipment.

Should they have had it? Well, there probably is a law, depending on how many guests that you have, maybe the square footage of the pool. I didn’t look into all the details, and, yeah, maybe they should have had it. So they should be fined, maybe, or given a letter to. Correct. Usually that’s how the health departments work. You get a letter that you’re in violation. They give you so much time so that you can remedy that oversight, and then you put in that ADA compliant lift to the tune of several thousand dollars, and everybody is happy.

Well, that’s not what was happening. This was a sting operation. This was a fishing expedition. This attorney probably paid, or however their arrangement, their financial arrangement was, this individual would go to these little inns and then file a formal complaint to sue them to have that he was harmed because he wasn’t able to use the pool, because he wasn’t able to get in and out. And again, as I say, instead of saying, oh, my gosh, maybe I should stay somewhere else if there’s no lift for the pool, maybe that’s not going to be a good place.

But to take it where then many of these places were settling because they didn’t want to have a lawsuit that’s underhanded, that is lacking in integrity. It is deceitful. I don’t care for it. And in the case of the children’s health defense, I find it deceitful. I find it underhanded that they were fishing for plaintiffs. It doesn’t sit well with me. Now, let me read to you more about this lawsuit.

And the other thing is, what kind of money are we talking about here? Are these plaintiffs going to be paid when they actually had to do nothing more in two out of three cases other than to send an email? They were put up to do this. And I would like to know personally how much money they were promised in exchange for this. Now, I am all in favor of legal action against these public serpents done on the up and up with integrity and dignity.

Nothing underhanded. No fishing expeditions. Come on, everybody’s applauding it and they didn’t even dig deeper. I’m the only one that digs. I think that’s what astounds me as well. I’m the only one that digs. All right, let me show you exactly in the lawsuit, what the lawsuit says. Here we go. We’ve got the plaintiffs here. And we’ve got, here we are, Esther Vanderwerf from Ohio, again, neighbors of RFK and a very strong RFK supporter.

We’ve got plaintiff Toby Stover from New York, and she went to that Roosevelt, Vanderbilt. Remember in the image I just showed you a moment ago? That’s exactly what they said. They were looking for people to go to that site. And here she went to the three places that they also mentioned. And here is, Elizabeth went to the Fort Pulaski because these are the ones that are not accepting cash.

So my friends, they were put up to doing this. Then I want to tell you exactly what happened. So here we have it. We’ve got the facts. Here we go. It says that they were harmed because they were not able to pay cash at these locations. All right. Toby Stover did drive to the FDR home in New York. And remember, this individual is from New York. Did I find a picture of Toby? I don’t know if I.

Yeah, I think I showed that to you. And then she’s the one that is the facial rejuvenation specialist and sells essential oils. So she went, she wanted to pay $10. He said, we don’t take cash. And would not allow her to entry. All right. To enter. She was refused entry. Okay. That’s exactly what happened after the children’s health defense solicited her and told her to go do that.

Just saying the facts, friends. You may think this is great. It’s a thing against the government, and they deserve it. That’s your opinion. My opinion is to do it differently, with integrity. All right. Plaintiff Esther, all the way from Ohio, California. My old stomping grounds up there, Santa Barbara. That’s where I went to the university, California, Santa Barbara. All right. She had an email inquiry. She emailed them and said, can I go? And they said, we do not have the ability to accept cash.

Are you with me? There was an email response from the National Park Service, and then she also had another inquiry in writing that said they only accept card transactions. They were very polite. They told her in advance, how was she harmed in that view? Because she didn’t drive all the way, spend her time, her gas, and all of that. Just saying. All right. Elizabeth Dasberg sent an email to Fort Pulaski National Historic site asking if she could pay cash on March 3.

She got the written response stating, oh, no, we only take debit or credit cards. Well, what an interesting Kawinky dink, because three days later is when this lawsuit was filed. There we have it, friends. And just. I was going to highlight that for you. And there we have it. So this is Ray Flores from California. He filed this in a federal court, and I wish him well with having the declaratory relief.

What they want. Here’s what they want from the judge. They want the judge to say that the rights were violated of those individuals and that the NPS should accept cash. That’s what the lawsuit is all about. Now, hopefully, that’s all it’s going to be. And there’s going to be no money that is going to be exchanged, because otherwise, let’s just say that Ray Flores, I don’t know him, and I cannot give you any opinion as to whether.

What his level of integrity is. I have no idea. I would love to have him come on the show. Maybe I should try to. I think that’d be great. I could reach out and try to get him on the show, because I want to find out how much this lawsuit is going to cost him and where that money comes from. Is he doing it pro bono, or are these plaintiffs going to pay him out of their own pocket and then have the judge declare that the National Park Service, in other words, the federal government, has to reimburse the attorney cost to these women, the three women that I showed you, they all look like they could be sisters.

And I would like to know exactly how much this lawsuit is going to cost. I would like to know how much money Ray Flores is going to earn on this lawsuit. I would like to know how much the defendants are going to earn or, I don’t know if I mean, not the defendants, the plaintiffs. How that works, I’m not exactly sure. Were they harmed? Like, what’s the financial burden of sending an email and then having the email come back and say, oh, no, we only take cash and we only take cards? Like, she didn’t get on a plane and fly there.

Now, there would be the cost of a flight. There would be her time off work. There would be the snacks that she bought at the airport. There would be the mental distress of having shown up and be denied and then having to drive back. She had her rental car. All our vacation plans were dashed. Now we’re talking some harms, but to send an email and have the email come back and say, no, we don’t take cash.

Come on. I don’t feel that. It’s not what my feeling. It is not an organic, authentic situation. They were fished, they were solicited, and I would like to know if they’re being paid. Those are my legitimate concerns. Friends, you are smart enough to be able to separate out all of the deception. I’m not in favor of any deception. All right? This is a deception going on. Even though I am in favor of the federal government not going cashless, I believe that there are ways of doing it that are full of integrity.

I just got a wonderful letter from a healthy American that I’ll have to read you in an upcoming show, where she said, peggy, one of the reasons why I love your show is that you do not use profanity. She said, I was on a Zoom call with some other freedom fighters, and she said, I had to get off it. It was so abusive to my being, hearing all of this profanity and people, like, flipping the middle finger off with anger at the government.

She’s like, but I felt like it was directed at me because I was the one saying it. And she said, I appreciate about that, about you. You have integrity. Friends, if there’s one thing that I’m going to stand on in all of this is I am not going to give up, give over, or give in my own dignity, self respect, and integrity. I don’t care the cost. I did not do that lawsuit that they fished me to do.

Because it wasn’t legitimate. It wasn’t authentic. There are plenty of people probably, that are being denied entry. Let those individuals bring the lawsuit. I’m sure that through social media you could find them in a legitimate manner, not just supporters of the children’s health defense. What say you can’t wait to read your perspectives. I love sharing our opinions. I love having you on board. A big shout out to our moderators.

Have a wonderful weekend, everyone. This is a brand new video for you, which is March 15, 2024. I’ll have the substac on this for you the following Monday. That substack is free, and you can sign up at peggyhall substack. com. I appreciate all of those that have upgraded to a paid subscription, which means you’re a part of our community and you also are able to leave your comment on all of the substacs and you have access to all of the archived information.

And your support helps me pay off my own legal bills. All right, friends, so great having you on board. I can’t wait to see you in an upcoming video. .

See more of The Healthy American Peggy Hall on their Public Channel and the MPN The Healthy American Peggy Hall channel.