Meghann Cuniff is a name that has gained quite a bit of prominence in the hip-hop world over the last year or so. In fact, you may now know her as Meghann The Reporter. This nickname came about thanks to her diligent work on the Tory Lanez trial. Overall, Cuniff was the leading source for all things related to the case. She was in the courtroom every single day of the trial and her up-to-the-minute updates were extremely valuable to those looking to follow along.
As it pertains to the Megan Thee Stallion and Tory Lanez trial, there was a lot of disinformation out there. Furthermore, you had blogs looking to tout specific agendas. Predominantly, you had those who wanted to make Megan look like a liar, while painting Tory as someone who had been wronged. However, Cuniff didn't care about narratives. The seasoned court reporter wanted to make sure only facts were being brought to the public. Anyone who listened to those facts would have known a conviction was inevitable. Those who ignored her, are still trying to do the mental gymnastics necessary to arrive at a "Free Tory" conclusion.
In this HotNewHipHop exclusive, we got to speak to Meghann Cuniff about her incredible work throughout the case. For instance, we got to speak at length about just how important it is to vet sources when following a case. Additionally, we discussed the vibe inside of the courtroom and all of the things that were going on during and after the trial. It was easily the biggest trial in hip-hop over the past year, and Cuniff helped document all of it.
We also dive into her career and how she got started with court reporting. Her story is incredible, and if you are interested in law, then she has great insights. Not to mention, you will be curious about what she has to say in regard to the future of court reporting. This includes, how to get seen while also keeping tabs on social media.
The following interview has been edited for clarity
HNHH: Maybe just tell me about your starting journalism and how you got into court reporting specifically.
Meghann Cuniff: Yeah, I was interested in journalism in high school and worked for the high school paper in Corvallis, Oregon, and then went to college at the University of Oregon and got into the student newspaper there the Daily Emerald, and really felt like I found my niche reporting on things the administration was doing the stuff regarding their efforts to build a new basketball arena that kind of thing. A friend and I who were both reporters there did an investigation into how the student government had used a bunch of student money to go to Sunriver and have a big party. So that really got me interested in journalism, and I ended up doing an internship in Bend, Oregon, and then Spokane Washington with the Spokesman Review covering the legislature. And then that turned into a job with the Spokesman Review where first I was covering schools in North Idaho, but then I went over to Spokane and was covering the day side cops. So that's what got me into court reporting first just going to the courthouse and looking at search warrants and going to arraignments and different proceedings and we covered a little bit of federal stuff then but it really picked up when I moved to California and I worked at the register at first, but then I started working at the Los Angeles Daily Journal which is like a newspaper for lawyers.
In California, it covers the California Judiciary closely. So I spent four years there and really got specialized training on legal issues and then went to ALM and law.com after that which is another pretty prominent news agency in the legal industry if you ever hear about law firms rank themselves as in the top ALM 100 or top ALM 200. ALM is the one that does those rankings through the American lawyers. So it's pretty kind of hoity-toity, but I wanted to get back into court reporting for a mainstream crowd. So I went to Law & Crime and that's when I started covering the Tory Lanez case when I was at the LA superior court because ALM and the Daily Journal weren't really into celebrity trials like that. They were really interested in civil litigation and the stuff the big law firms were doing but they didn't really cover Superior Court cases too much like that. So I wanted to get back into that.
What would you say is the most enticing thing about court reporting?
I think all the personalities involved and when you get into the complex cases really trying to figure out the case strategy that the lawyers are doing. I mean, it's not so much the exact questions. it's like why are they asking the questions and just kind of like the Dynamics at play in all the cases and then just the human drama that goes on I think what you said about, the assignment where you just go to court and you just write about whatever happens that's a good example of how interesting Court can be and maybe also how boring but I mean, that's how I got into it a lot and some of my best stories would be going to the courthouse for a specific case, but then funning into another hearing or another case that was going on and realizing it was a more interesting story. I mean, I remember going to Spokane the Eastern District of Washington the federal courthouse in Spokane for some kind of arraignment or something, but before that, they were doing a bail hearing for a guy. He'd already pleaded guilty to Federal cocaine charges and he was facing a prison sentence and he was allowed out for Thanksgiving. And the hearing was about how he was going to be given an ankle monitor and be allowed out to see his family and spend Thanksgiving with them before he went off to prison so that became the story and it ran on the front page and when I went over the courthouse the next day all the TV stations were over there trying to get his criminal history because he had a big long criminal history. So it was just an example of the news that you can find over there and how they don't send out press releases on all the cases that happened so you got to be over there and find it.
What are some of the harsh lessons that you kind of learned early on getting into court reporting?
Probably the harshest lessons are just about how unpredictable it can be and how much it can affect your kind of day-to-day existence. Judges and lawyers especially judges run the courtroom and it's not a beat or a job. That's good for people who just want to set hours and don't want to work a lot of extra hours here and there and want to know, day in and day out what you're gonna do because you'll just find out how unpredictable Court proceedings can be and how if you have something to do that night or if you think that a corporate seating is only going to be a couple hours or an hour and it turns into a two-day thing how that can really, affect just your day-to-day existence like that. I think the Tory Lanez case is a good example for that because I figured that sentencing was gonna be a couple of days but a lot of those news agencies send people to high profile kind of finality events like that who haven't covered the case at all and don't have any idea what to expect and think that it's gonna be like a half an hour. So a lot of reporters have gone in there thinking it was going to be like a half an hour and they're trapped in there for two days. And I think that contributes to newspapers, and traditional news agencies, especially in LA not covering trials day in and day out because it's just frankly a burden for the reporters who have to sit there on the hard benches all day and be there until 5:30 at night or something.
Yeah, and that's actually one of the questions that I had later on, but I'll bring it up now since you mentioned it because I was gonna say that, looking at your work on the Megan Thee Stallion and Tory Lanez case and then another big court case that we followed back in 2019 would have been 6ix9ine…the journalist who was following that story in New York was Inner City Press, which I know you've interacted a few times on Twitter and the internet was basically the source for that trial just like you were the source for Tory Lanez. and it made me think about how a lot of the court reporting we see now is done by independent journalists on independent platforms. Where do you think that shift happened? Is it a question of newspapers not having the budget anymore?
I think part of it is budget constraints and then a lot of people wanting to write for the newspaper and write long-term stuff and not do the minute-by-minute Twitter stuff which ends up giving people like Matthew (Inner City Press) a huge advantage because in high-profile cases like that people are so interested in the minute by minute and I think a lot of newspapers think that they can survive and do the coverage through, end of day stuff, but it becomes important to people to have updates like that that it's really an opportunity for guys like Matthew to shine. The reason cases in the southern district of New York get such good coverage is because he's actually in the media room. He has credentials in a spot in the media room. And a lot of the judges in the southern district of New York, especially for high profile cases, and the reporters can petition that they do this. They turn on an audio feed from the courtroom to the media room. And I'm not quite sure how it works. I went there for the Michael Avenatti Stormy Daniels case because he was a California guy and I felt it had California connections, but I couldn't get credentials for the media room. It's like you need to show that you covered cases in the southern district of New York for a certain period of time and so on and so forth. So they don't just give it to out-of-state reporters for one case, but the federal court in LA doesn't have… There's a media room technically, but they don't have audio feeds like that and reporters are restricted from live tweeting from Court. We can't even have our phones out and it's like that in the southern district of New York too. So most of the reporters like Matthew go to the courtroom for big moments or to see things outside, but most of the time he's sitting at his desk in the media room, and there just isn't that capability in LA so part of it is just like Logistics. [...]
One thing I'm really wishing I had covered was Youngboy Never Broke Again his gun case that he had a year ago or so he got acquitted but I've heard just within the US attorney's office that I mean those felon in possession of a firearm cases, the federal prosecutors they have on it aren't usually the most experienced prosecutors, but for that case, it was like they were just pushed into a buzz saw nobody really realized or knew much about him and people didn't really take him seriously. They didn't know that he would have such a stacked legal representation, but that's just an example of a case that had been tried in this other District of New York. It probably would have gotten a lot more coverage than LA so I might have gotten a little off track there, but it is kind of an example of just the differences and how much Court proceedings can matter in coverage.
Would you say the recent lack of court coverage has a lot to do with courthouses being less forthcoming with documents and access as a whole?
You definitely see that in LA Superior Court. I'm not sure about the documents situation. I bet the document situation has always been pretty terrible for criminal cases, but at least in terms of cameras in court and filming they were able to have cameras in film a lot more back in the 80s than they do. Now. I mean cameras are completely restricted in the courthouse where the Tory Lanez trial was, but if you look at trials that happen, they're back in the 80s. They had boom mics in the hallway and cameras getting people as they went in. So there was definitely a huge. change for Less access in the last 20 30 years which is interesting and part of that was just maybe OJ turned into such a media circus and I think there were a lot of Judges who were kind of wary of the circus atmosphere that accompanied some of those trials, but I mean, it's just the consequences a lot of trials just don't get more coverage but part of that is also Legacy Media just not having big enough roots on the west coast to fight stuff like that in LA Superior Court. Where is they have such established access in New York the southern district of New York in the media room and the audio feeds and then LA Times doesn't really step up when I think they should to kind of advocate for stuff like that and there's just isn't the media institution and longtime. Institutions out here to fight for that kind of stuff.
Transitioning to the Tory Lanez and Megan Thee Stallion trial, were you aware of the story going into it or did you just stumble upon the trial while doing your usual reporting?
So I was not aware of the story previously, but I was on the LA Superior Court mailing list and they sent out something saying the trials coming up and if you want credentials, email us by this date. So I was already up at the courthouse anyway for Danny Masterson and Harvey Weinstein's trial and I knew who Megan Thee Stallion was. I hadn't heard of Tory Lanez or the case, but I knew who she was and figured that would be a fun one to cover but frankly we'd all been going up there you're going to court for the trials for the last almost it's been a month and a half or two months. We're all pretty tired and it was like getting into Christmas time and everything and no one was super excited about covering another trial but I definitely liked to cover her testimony. So I got a press credential for it. That email was probably sent out maybe two weeks before it happened and they had a press pool for jury selection that I got tuned into I didn't sign up for the Press wall, but I started getting the reports on that and then started following it that way and then Nancy from Rolling Stone had been covering it since the beginning and I was talking to her because she was kind of watching the Weinstein case too. So she had kind of filled me in on it, but I definitely did not know I went in there not expecting anything.
I mean, I've been tweeting about Harvey Weinstein here and there I'm getting some attention, but just any tweet about Megan Thee Stallion and the Tory case seemed to do better, but I think it was a couple of days before I really went viral. I think the opening statements where she testified Tuesday and then Wednesday was Kelsey and by Wednesday, I think that's when things were really jumping. I think that was the day that I got 3,000 followers in an hour. That was when it really first happened I noticed all the interactions all day, but then something happened and I looked at my followers and then an hour later. I looked at him again. I'm like, holy s***. I just gained 3,000 followers, but I ended up gaining 60,000 followers during the two-week trial. It was kind of crazy.
The case itself had a lot of narratives about it circulating on social media. A lot of people had their minds made up already. Obviously, as a seasoned journalist, you can see past that stuff. But did you do any sort of research or were you aware of those narratives on social media beforehand?
I did do a previous story for Law & Crime where I actually called George Mgdesyan and I think I maybe emailed them first and set up a time or he called me. And I remember he was talking about his case strategy and he was telling me that a big part of his case was gonna be he thought the case really depended on him establishing for the jury. What happened at Kylie's house? And I remember just thinking who is this guy? What happened at Kylie's house? because I knew that there was some kind of party at Kylie Jenner's house and I'm like, I don't think so. Is this gonna be some kind of self-defense thing where Megan was just so out of control? It just seemed kind of funny that he was focused on that but I didn't know anything about him blaming the friend or saying that she wasn't shot but going into opening statements, I think it was the second day or the third day where I realized that the fact that Mgdesyan admitted in the opening statement that she was shot was actually really big news because people were saying that she wasn't shot. I mean, I just thought the dialogue on it was just kind of silly.
When I look back at the two weeks in the trial coverage, it was probably just the purest time in the case before I had just been inundated with all the stupid internet stuff that accompanied it because I think that's kind of the one big storyline in this case. It's just a huge disconnect between all the dialogue and The Shade Room Instagram comments versus what actually happened there and I would say because I definitely hear why we would say, what popular opinion is about the Tory Lanez case and then when you look it up on the internet, you're like, the popular opinion would be that I guess it just depends on where you're looking but who thinks that the popular opinion is, the people who have the YouTube Lives who defend Tory all the time and the TMZ post that kind of pump them up. I'm not sure if that's really widespread popular opinion and I think popular opinion. I'm not sure really even takes Tory Lanez seriously. But it just kind of depends on who you're talking to.
During the trial, there were a couple of bloggers who were around the courtroom who were online delivering half-truths on IG Lives. Essentially making it seem like Tory was innocent or at least making people think that. How frustrating was it to watch that unfold while you were trying to deliver the facts?
I didn't see too much of it because I was frankly so busy just like doing my own things but it always just struck me as kind of silly. I mean in the end, it's freedom of speech and people's perception is always interesting to hear but I was always kind of baffled. I'm like is this genuine do they really think this and I think maybe they do but especially there was one guy. I don't want to like name names, but he would run out into the hallway and do these breathless updates and stuff and one was their whole thing about Kelsey recanting on the stand because it definitely wasn't good for prosecutors that Kelsey got up there and wouldn't say that Lanez was the shooter.
Some acted like it just shattered the prosecution's entire case and it's like, the jury can take into account demeanor, right, and the idea that Kelsey was being believable which was recanting on the stand, is something that they didn't seem to grasp that this was actually a lot more common in gun cases or domestic violence. Prosecutors would kind of know how to deal with it by questioning about her previous statements. And one thing that really seemed to be missed and all the kind of breathless coverage of this is the prosecutors, staring at the shambles of their cases. That's all over the witness stand for Kelsey's recant it's like did you hear the judge say that he thinks the questioning of Kelsey by Tory's lawyer opened the door for the next day all of us just coming in and just sitting there for an hour. I think it was 80. How many minutes was it her interview with prosecutors from December or September two months before trial where she just tells them everything and totally clearly identifies Lanez as the shooter the fact that that just played all in full to me that became the bigger story because she testified over two days. So the first day was about her recant on the stand and then of course the second day of testimony she was doing the same thing still recanting.
But at the end of the day when the judge has the tape of her talking to prosecutors. We're gonna be able to just play that for the jury in full tomorrow. It's like, that's a really big story. That's not good for Tory Lanez that they would be able to play that and all that seemed to be a little bit missed on them, but it's not so much frustrating. It's just kind of amusing and fascinating.
With the rise of Andrew Tate, there seems to be this trend of trying to get young teenage men thinking that women are inherently untrustworthy and that they are always lying. This is something that felt front and center with the Megan Thee Stallion case. People wanted to make it seem like she was lying and there were these heavy misogynistic undertones. Did you ever catch glimpses of that, especially from the blogs?
Yeah. I remember the first day of opening statements. When a lot of the coverage was focused on this one throwaway line that George kind of almost mumbled under his breath about Megan doing this before with DaBaby and someone else where I mean, he's like talking about the victim's sex life and his opening statement almost like dude. I don't know if that's gonna go very well with the jury and it was just like where did that even come from kind of thing? And especially for me coming from my background working at the LA Daily Journal doing judge profiles and working at ALM my earlier background. I mean, I'm not like a prude or some sheltered kid in any way. I mean I grew up in Corvallis, Oregon and I worked at McDonald's for four years and we used to go to a lot of raves. I mean, I've seen some crazy stuff but this whole just denigrating of women. I mean some of these people who I won't even give the dignity of naming the rants that they've gone on including about me. It's just disqualifying to me. It's like dude. I don't take anything that you say seriously because of this huge rant that you just went on about whatever.
Absolutely, and as for the conviction, was that in line with what you thought was going to happen based on the two-week trial?
Yeah, I mean most of the time in cases. I mean the jury likes to convict and some people are like, prosecutors shouldn't brag about their conviction rate. It's like prosecutors would say that they can brag about their conviction rate because they don't charge innocent people. There's a whole system that goes into place in charging somebody so if they charge them they think he's guilty but just overall juries like to convict and for a simple kind of first-degree assault case like that where the victim is identifying them. I thought it was pretty likely that he would be convicted and in a full acquittal I think would just be really unlikely but you just don't know there could be a juror there's always a possibility of a hung jury, even in cases where I thought that there was gonna be a fast conviction like Michael Avenotti's fraud case for Stormy Daniels.
The jury went over two days. They deliberated seven hours over two days and the 22nd they were out for three hours and what was interesting was they asked questions really fast within an hour and they had asked to hear back a few testimonies. They also asked for Megan’s testimony, part of it, but then didn't end up hearing it. But then the second day they were deliberating and that's the most stressful time waiting for it because you just don't know what they're gonna do. But I remember the second we heard that there was a verdict not a question like there is a verdict I was like he's guilty because if there's no verdict we're a hung jury. It's not going to be an acquittal like it's gonna be guilty. I was like, God guys, they're gonna convict them on all counts and his family's gonna freak out.
That leads into my next question which was about Lanez's father. When the verdict was in, we all had your tweet notifications on, waiting to hear what happened. We get the guilty verdict and then you tweet that his dad is unhinged in the court. Walk us through that scene.
Yeah, I mean we were all sitting in there and I think he did wait as the jury was walking out. They just convicted him but then the jury is leaving the courtroom and Lanez, his father, stands up and just starts screaming and it was just so loud because he's a preacher and people have seen the video of him outside the courthouse where he was actually crazier than that in the courtroom, but then there's also a clip that I don't see repeated as much but he's not standing right in front of the cameras, but he goes over to his car and it's like right before he gets in his car. He lets out another scream and I'm like, okay that is comparable to what it was like in the courtroom. But yeah, he is screaming in the courtroom and the deputies don't have enough people there because they had more people there on December 22nd, but December 23rd, it's like this two days before Christmas, a bunch of them have time off and I remarked to one of the reporters that they didn't have enough deputies in there because if Lanez gets convicted he's out of custody. So they're gonna have to remand them and that's going to be kind of a s*** show but I was sitting in reporter row and the reporter next to me started really freaking out when Lanez's father started freaking out because it was scary how he was yelling and then just the unpredictability of it and I mean, I've talked to judges I know or retired judges that the verdict is always the craziest part because they get convicted all hell can break loose like somebody was telling me that her husband who is a judge was once ordered by the bailiffs to duck under his desk because all the families were freaking out and everything.
So there was the woman sitting in front of us who turned around and said Jay Z is a b**** and then she saw it was me and she was like report that Jay Z is a b**** and then Lanez's father freaked out. I think after that and then a woman behind us put her hand up in the air and was like and Jesus's name in Jesus's name and I was like, this is f****** crazy.
Tory’s team did seem to have a very defeatist attitude in terms of their defense. And eventually, he hired Jose Baez who has a pretty lengthy history in terms of getting people off high-profile cases. However, he didn’t seem to even care about Lanez. During a hearing, he was on vacation and just issued an Instagram story post saying “Good luck.” What do you make of that whole scenario?
Yeah, he did have post-sentencing. He was pretty much done with the case. But I mean the big thing with Baez was there just wasn't much that he could do post-conviction because it's like the motion for new trial and then prepare for sentencing and him not being involved in the first trial and not knowing all that much about California criminal law just simply because he's doesn't practice in California kind of put him at a disadvantage for really doing anything great like that. But motions for new trial are just Dead on Arrival the vast majority of time, even when really well put together. He doesn't have very big issues that would drive it. So for anyone who really knew anything about the court system, it was obvious. He was never gonna get a new trial but I think what tripped people up was the way that judge Herriford let it go on for so long and all the delays that he did and everything.
But yeah, it was just that the post-conviction process was looking back just kind of really silly because none of that stuff ever had a chance of happening and I think Baez was there, the whole time once he took over and was doing the motion for new trial and sentencing but then he was so offended by my tweet where I shared his Instagram story, but he wouldn't just admit that. He wasn't Tory's lawyer anymore and he wasn't gonna be doing the bail hearing the appeal thing and I mean he just acts like the reason that he wasn't at the motion for new bail is because he just had a prior commitment but I'm like, he's pretty clearly not Tory's lawyer for the appeal.
I guess that kind of leads into my next question which it kind of also ties into the letters, right? Because I think it must have been within a week of one another you had the letter from Azalea and Mario. Those went viral, but then also with the Danny Masterson trial you had the Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis letters go viral. For a lot of young people, these were the first trials they ever followed closely. That being said, for yourself, the letters were something that is a common practice, however, many were kind of shocked of their existence. Have you been surprised by some of the lack of knowledge from the general public when it comes to court reporting and just these legal matters in general?
Yeah, I mean I wasn't surprised at the huge outcry. I figured we'd have that but one thing I did just notice lacking in the coverage was the context for how common they are. And then I also thought there was some disingenuous reactions to it from people who basically really don't like the fact that Ashton and Mila wrote those letters and just don't want to hear any kind of explanation about how those are common or anything like that because they feel like it's like defending them or something. And one thing it reminded me is, I got a ton of attention from the Tory Lanez stuff, but the reaction to the Mila Kunis Ashton Kutcher's letters was way bigger like I had never gotten that much attention for just one kind of story. There were so many big international news agencies that linked to me and I did a story later on about we were talking about how common those are and just kind of the process And for the most part it was well received because there were even people who said, they don't agree with those letters at all, but they appreciated the background on it, but there was a small group of people who basically harassed me over the fact that I had written an article that they thought was somehow defending these letters or insulting their intelligence or something like that.
I would always look for original sources. There's so much aggregation and the people who aggregate according to this TV station…this is going to happen in the Young Thug trial. When I read articles like that or click on an article that is saying ‘according to this news agency,’ I always make a point of clicking out of that and going to the news agency that they're citing because I'm like you should go with the primary sources because I think we're gonna be seeing a lot of that with the Young Thug trial.
I think that there's such a tendency in YouTube to just kind of do the shock jock commentary and offer opinions, where as if you can offer context and compare things like the judges doing this and it's similar to what I saw judges do in another case. I'm hoping that that can be kind of a niche that is filled for those cases, especially the Young Thug Rico trial. I think that'll be just because I mean that's like the same county that Trump is charged with RICO. And so that's an interesting thing to look at. But that's just one thing. I've been thinking about with my coverage of this stuff because obviously people want to hear from me and they trust my insight on these cases. So I'm kind of like what do I do with that? And how do I, try to connect with those people on other cases?
Now that you have all of this notoriety. I’m sure there has been an increased pressure to cover stories related to hip-hop. Whether that be the Rocky trial or the Cesar Pina/DJ Envy case. Would you say that pressure exists and if so, how is it affecting your reporting moving forward?
I think identity crisis is way too strong and dramatic of a term but it's like that. I'm just trying to figure out what do I do with all this new following that I have because one thing I really like about my job and what I do is actually getting to go to court and cover trials that the central district of California the Los Angeles federal court system is doing because that's my original base. This newsletter that I have this subject that I have most of my paid subscribers. A lot of them come from the LA Legal community and they like the fact that I know about the judges and cover the big trials that the US attorney's office is doing so I definitely don't want to give that up but they also do enjoy the celebrity reporting and some of them really get a kick out of the fact that I've gotten so well known and I have such a big following so they are encouraging me to find a way to do both right now.
That answers quite a few my questions but where do you see the future of court reporting going from here on out? Because social media's changed the game completely in terms of everybody wanting up to the second updates but then also with the video access kind of being limited in certain areas. So what do you think is gonna be the future of court reporting? Do you see maybe newspapers sort of going back to it or do you think it's just gonna continue to be more independent?
I think it's gonna be more and more independent. You might see local papers still covering the courthouses here and there but the big National trials and the cases that are ongoing especially, stuff that Law & Crime Network streams. I think the more it's just turning to streaming and independence and I kind of wonder if journalism is going that route anyway with just the rise of YouTube and how much money you can make off a successful YouTube channel compared to the salaries that you make, even at big papers like the Los Angeles Times. I mean a YouTuber who's really doing it right and getting big can make a lot more money than people of those papers make so I feel like that's kind of where everything's going.
For everybody at home who's reading this, where can people continue to find your work beyond just your Twitter?
Yeah, legalaffairsandtrials.com. I couldn't believe that URL was actually available when I looked for it, but I bought it on Google domains for 12 bucks or something and have it set up through Substack. And I really want to focus everything on there: the print articles and using the Subtack notes, but then also my YouTube channel because even some attorneys some of the federal prosecutors I know have said that they like the YouTube lives that I do because they'll just listen to it on background because it's like a podcast because as much as I like to think that everybody is reading every single word that I send out especially for some of the people in some of the trial attorneys are frankly just too busy to read everything like that. So they like hearing me talk about the articles to get that so I need to find I'm still looking for my YouTube identity, but hopefully people can tune in to me there and check out all the videos. I'm gonna be posting on there. Substack and YouTube are the big ones.