English version below

 

Piše: Veran Matić

Sedeo sam u četvrtak u maloj sudnici Palate pravde na pripremnom ročištu parnične tužbe sutkinje Apelacionog suda Dušanke Đorđević i njenog supruga advokata Aleksandra Đorđevića, jednog od šefova službi u Državnoj bezbednosti devedesetih godina (zadužen, između ostalog, za obezbeđenje Mirjane Marković), u onoj Državnoj bezbednosti Radomira Markovića, pravosnažno osuđenog za organizovanje ili učešće u nekoliko ubistava. Sutkinja Đorđević nedavno je, kao deo Apelacionog veća, učestvovala u oslobađanju optuženih, i prvostepeno dva puta osuđenih na ukupno 100 godina zatvora, u slučaju ubistva novinara Slavka Ćuruvije, koje je bilo vrhunac procesa ućutkivanja nezavisnih medija devedesetih godina. Pored mene, bila je Tamara Filipović iz NUNS-a i Sofija Bogosavljev iz KRIK-a. Bio sam i na pripremnom ročištu po krivičnoj prijavi istih tužitelja protiv redakcije za iste optužbe i tada je bilo mnogo više koleginica i kolega, kao i posmatrača iz sedam ambasada. 

Prva pomisao bila mi je kakav pakao čeka optužene Bojanu Pavlović i Stevana Dojčinovića u naredne najmanje tri godine koliko će se, verujem, suditi do pravosnažnosti presude. KRIK ima 16 sličnih SLAPP tužbi koje za cilj imaju zastrašivanje, ometanje i, siguran sam, uništenje redakcije. Pored toga, redakcija je tužila tabloide i pojedince za klevete i laži izrečenu o njima. 

I neminovno mi se nametnulo pitanje kako je bilo našoj koleginici Dafne Karuana Galiciji sa Malte, sa 48 procesa koji su moćnici vodili protiv nje, sa blokiranim računima i šikaniranjem od strane svake moguće institucije na Malti, bez tako potrebne podrške medijske zajednice. Bez međunarodne podrške. Ali sa snažnom voljom da nastavi istrage koje su razotkrile kriminal i korupciju u vrhu vlasti jedne članice EU. Radeći svoj posao po novinarskim standardima, verujući u ideju pravde, postulate i vrednosti EU. Auto u koji je ušla ispred svoje kuće, da bi otišla do banke kako bi rešila blokadu svog računa koji je važan za egistenciju porodice, eksplodirao je od ogromne količine eksploziva stavljenog pod njega. 

Isti je osećaj i kada je reč o Janu Kucijaku iz Slovačke… Nedostatak snažne podrške, i efikasne zaštite, stvorio je priliku da silnici donesu odluke o ubistvu. O demonstraciji poruke šta će se dogoditi svakome ko u njih dirne. I istrage i sudski procesi se odvijaju u sličnoj atmosferi. Baš kao što je kod nas bilo u slučaju suđenja optuženima za ubistvo Slavka Ćuruvije. Danas su deca Slavka Ćuruvije, osnivači fondacije koja nosi njegovo ime, postali meta SLAPP tužbi ranije optuženih, dva puta prvostepeno osuđivanih, pa oslobođenih od strane veća čiji je član bila i sutkinja Đorđević.

Kroz glavu su mi prolazili nerešeni slučajevi pretnji novinarkama i novinarima KRIK-a. Od 2016. godine, od kada se vodi evidencija u Vrhovnom javnom tužilaštvu prijavljeno je više od deset slučajeva ugrožavanja bezbednosti članova ove redakcije. U stanove tri novinarke KRIK-a imali smo upade – one u kojima se ne uzimaju vrednosti, već traže izvori, podaci, na čemu se radi, koja se sledeća tema istražuje… Sećam se rasprava na Stalnoj radnoj grupi za bezbednost novinara, kada sam insistirao da se objedine istrage, potraže podudarnosti, motivi… Nije ništa urađeno. Sećam se prijave za praćenje dvoje članova redakcije, dugo smo se mučili oko toga da se odradi posao pregledanja kamera… Iako je registrovano praćenje, nije bilo rezultata. Bojanu Pavlović su nepoznata lica presrela, od kojih je neke identifikovala, i privremeno oduzela telefonski aparat, u toku realizacije radnog zadatka. Niko nije snosio konsekvence. 

I ne samo da nema pravde za ove hrabre i vrlo profesionalne novinarke i novinare, već su oni meta čitavog niza aktivnosti sa ciljem da se spreči i zaustavi njihov rad. 

Nekažnjivost pretnji i nasilja nad novinarima, ohrabruje i podstiče da se to nasilje nastavi. A sudski procesi protiv novinara zbog iznošenja činjenica i objavljivanja presuda protiv njih guše slobodu govora i ulogu novinara kao „psa čuvara“ javnog interesa. U slučaju KRIK-a, imamo i nekažnjivost nasilja prema redakciji, ali i aktivne procese sa ciljem da se zastraše i onemoguće u svom radu. I zajedničke aktivnosti iz različitih pravaca, od strane različitih institucija i moćnih pojedinaca da budu uništeni. 

I zaista mislim da je u toku akcija ućutkivanja i uništavanja KRIK-a, zbog toga što se redakcija u isto vreme susreće sa brojnim pretnjama, ugrožavanjima bezbednosti novinarki i novinara, onemogućavanja normalnog rada, brojnim SLAPP tužbama, zaprećenim kaznama koje su kombinacija visokih finansijskih, zatvorskih i kazni zabrana obavljanja novinarskog posla, te stalnom satanizacijom lažima i klevetama kroz tabloide, a vrlo često i sa najviših mesta izvršne i zakonodavne vlasti. Sve zajedno je paket za gašenje ove redakcije, ali i drugih koje se bave novinarstvom na sličan način, istražujući kriminal i korupciju i objavljujući činjenice. 

***

Kada sedite u sudnici, iako se radi samo o pripremnom ročištu, možete lako uočiti prirodu procesa, namere i ciljeve. 

Mislio sam da su, na pripremnom ročištu po krivičnoj tužbi, advokati tužitelja napravili propust kada su osećaj straha sutkinje i njenog supruga dokazivali tekstovima iz Informera, zbog kojih ih je, po rečima advokatice odbrane Krune Savović, Stevan Dojčinović tužio. Informer je pravosnažno osuđen na nadoknadu štete i  obavezu da objave presudu u kojoj su dokazane laži.  Međutim, zastupnici sutkinje i njenog supruga i u parničnom postupku podnose iste dokaze, tekstove zbog kojih su tabloidni mediji i autori osuđeni pravosnažno. Ovakav nastup je silnički, jer se ne vodi računa o tome da je taj argument već pobijen pravosnažnim presudama. On predstavlja dodatno nastojanje da se tabloidno kleveta i diskredituje urednik i redakcija i još je jedan dokaz da je reč o SLAPP tužbi, jer se bez obzira na netačnost dokaza oni koriste kao sadržaj da bi se dobilo dodatno vreme… Takođe, preko zastupnika poručuju da su izloženi medijskom linču, bez i jednog dokaza, osim onog sa društvenih mreža, iz reči onih koji komentarišu vesti, bez ikakvog uticaja i odgovornosti redakcije KRIK-a. 

Dakle, vrednosni sistem na koji se oslanjaju sutkinja i njen suprug advokat je tabloidna laž kao dokaz, protiv novinara koji su domaćim i međunarodnim priznanjima nagrađivani za profesionalizam i etičnost. Kada se pogleda ovaj spisak priznanja, nemoguće je uočiti bilo kakvu logiku koju koriste tužioci.

Njihov zastupnik iznosi tvrdnju da su nagrade način finansiranja ovakvih projekata, opet bez i jednog dokaza,  ali dovoljno da dodatno otkriva prirodu ove tužbe – treba dokazati da su strani plaćenici, pa makar i intepretirajući ugledna međunarodna priznanja kao način finansiranja rada ove redakcije. KRIK, inače, vrlo transparentno iznosi podatke o donatorima i donacijima. I zbog toga je potrebno tu transparentnost kompromitovati iznošenjem insinuacija. 

Neko ko treba da štiti zakonitost i ustavni poredak, oslanja se na informacije onih medija koji su skoro svakodnevno kažnjavani za kršenje novinarskog kodeksa, a protiv onih koji dosledno istražuju patologije društva i čine ih javnim. 

Advokati tužitelja forsiraju tezu koja ničim nije dokazana – da su sudija i suprug advokat predstavljeni kao neko ko je imovinu stekao kriminalom i korupcijom. Oni sami učitavaju tu nameru jer nema nijednog dokaza da ih je KRIK optužio za tako nešto.

To je i razlog zbog kojeg se protive svedočenju novinarke Jelene Radivojević, koja je pisala tekst koji prati bazu „Prosudi ko sudi“, u kojem ne postoji nijedna konstatacija ni insinuacija u tom smislu. Novinarka je, takođe, pre objavljivanja teksta stupila u kontakt sa sudijom, koja je odbila da komentariše javno dostupne podatke. Objavljene su javno dostupne činjenice, ponuđeno je sutkinji da dâ dodatne informacije i činjenice, i objavljen je potpuno neutralan tekst Jelene Radivojević o javno dostupnim podacima. Sve to je dovoljan dokaz da optužnica bude odbačena. 

***

Advokatica jednog od tužitelja dodatno je optužila i sve novinare koji su pratili ročište da selektivno izveštavaju, da vrše pritisak na sud i da, zajedno sa optuženima, rade na urušavanju ustavnog poretka. 

Nedostatak dokaza protiv redakcije KRIK-a nadoknađuje se teškim optužbama da redakcija, a i novinari koji izveštavaju, rade na urušavanju ustavnog poretka. I opet bez i jednog dokaza. Profesionalni izveštaji sa suđenja i tekstovi o svim akterima ovog suđenja, proglašavaju se pritiskom na sud. Još jedna poruka da novinari ne treba da izveštavaju o tužiteljima i samom suđenju. 

Izveštaji Vuka Cvijića i Perice Gunjića sa suđenja objektivno prenose ono što se dogodilo u sudnici i daju vrlo korisne informacije za razumevanje ovog suđenja. 

Vrlo je jasno kako zastupnici tužitelja sutkinje i supruga advokata koriste duboku političku polarizaciju u društvu, sa snažnom retorikom u kojoj je potrebno prvo lepiti etikete i klevete o neprijateljima i stranim plaćenicima, rušiteljima ustavnog poretka, jer će biti lakša meta. I za vreme suđenja za ubistvo Slavka Ćuruvije, iz redova advokata odbrane mogle su se čuti iste kvalifikacije koje je Miloševićev režim koristio devedesetih godina, izdajnik, strani plaćenik… 

***

Bojani Pavlović, Stevanu Dojčinoviću i redakciji KRIK-a sudi se zbog objavljivanja javno dostupnih informacija koji se nalaze na sajtu Republičkog geodetskog zavoda. U nepostanju argumentata da se kriminalizuju javno dostupne činjenice, zastupnici tužbe nastoje da dokažu da objavljivanje tih podataka ugrožava bezbednost sutkinje. I dostavljaju opis kako je moguće „u tri koraka“ uz pomoć ovih podataka doći do mesta boravka sutkinje i njenog supruga advokata. Dakle, redakcija nije otkrila mesto boravka ove porodice. Ali zastupnici sutkinje kao da to žele da urade po svaku cenu i dostavljaju dokaz „kako je to moguće uraditi u tri koraka“. Pošto je redakcija KRIK-a samo prenela postojeće podatke iz javno dostupne baze koju svako može da pogleda, ako postoji bilo kakva primedba na zaštitu privatnosti, prava adresa je Republički geodetski zavod koji sigurno ne krši zakone ove zemlje objavljujući podatke koji predstavljaju i imovno stanje porodice sutkinje Đorđević i njenog supruga advokata Đorđevića bez ikakvih promena. 

***

Ovo je tipičan slučaj za poštovanje Anti-SLAPP direktive EU, koja uprkos tome što se odnosi samo na prekogranične slučajeve, ipak sadrži zanimljive mehanizme za borbu protiv SLAPP tužbi kao što je davanje mogućnosti sudijama da ovakve prijave odbace u ranoj fazi kao neosnovane.  

Pošto Anti-SLAPP direktiva EU još nije integrisana u naše zakonodavstvo, prisustvovaćemo još jednoj agoniji gušenja KRIK-a. 

***

Pored pretnji i zastrašivanja, redakcija se redovno suočava sa tužbama moćnika koji nastoje da zaustave rad KRIK-a, ili bar da ne pišu o njima. Vrlo je uočljivo to ometanje u slučaju ministra Nenada Popovića, koji se nikada nije pojavljivao na suđenjima. 

Sam pregled imena onih koji su tužili KRIK govori  o opasnoj situaciji u kojoj se nalazi ova redakcija, i istraživačko novinarstvo uopšte, sloboda medija i sloboda govora uopšte. Tu je skoncentrisana i formalna i neformalna moć ove države. 

Najveći broj ovih tužbi potpada pod termin SLAPP tužbi, koje imaju za cilj da novinare spreče da nastave da se bave temama koje su već istraživali i objavljivali, da kroz dugotrajne procese spreče redakcije da rade svoj posao, usput ih mentalno i finansijski iscrpljujući, da kroz tabloidne medije satanizuju redakcije i targetiraju na način da budu konstantno ugrožene. 

***

Mislim da je važno da se globalno shvati kompleksnost problema sa kojima se suočavaju novinari i mediji u Srbiji, branitelji slobode govora i organizacije civilnog društva. Nismo statistika. Ovoliko ili onoliko napada, toliko pretnji, verbalnih i fizičkih, toliko SLAPP tužbi, toliko napada na novinarke. Sve zajedno je veoma loše, i zbog toga treba i da se štitimo, solidarišemo i branimo. 

Novo ročište Nastavak suđenja po krivičnoj tužbi nastavlja se u utorak, 12. novembra u 14 časova u sudnici broj 13, Prvog osnovnog suda u Beogradu, Katanićeva 15.

 

Ovaj tekst objavljen je uz finansijsku pomoć Evropske unije, Ministarstva informisanja i telekomunikacija Republike Srbije, Norveške i Balkanskog fonda za demokratiju, projekta Nemačkog Maršalovog fonda SAD. Za njegovu sadržinu isključivo je odgovorna Asocijacija nezavisnih elektronskih medija i ta sadržina nužno ne izražava zvanične stavove Evropske unije, Ministarstva informisanja i telekomunikacija, vlade Norveške, Nemačkog Maršalovog fonda i Balkanskog fonda za demokratiju.

---

Silencing the KRIK

Author: Veran Matić

I sat on Thursday in the small courtroom of the Palace of Justice at the preliminary hearing of the civil lawsuit of Appellate Court judge Dušanka Djordjević and her husband, lawyer Aleksandar Djordjević, one of the heads of department in the State Security Agency in the 1990s (and a member of Mirjana Marković's security), in the State Security headed by Radomir Marković, legally convicted of organizing or participating in several murders. Judge Djordjević recently, as part of the Appellate Panel, took part in the acquittal of the accused, and those sentenced in the first instance to a total of 100 years in prison, in the case of the murder of journalist Slavko Ćuruvija, which was the peak of the process of silencing independent media in the 1990s. Besides me, Tamara Filipović from NUNS and Sofija Bogosavljev from KRIK attended the hearing. I was also at the preliminary hearing on the criminal complaint filed by the same prosecutors against the editorial office for the same accusations, and then, there were many more colleagues, as well as observers from seven embassies.

My first thought was what kind of hell awaits the defendants Bojana Pavlović and Stevan Dojčinović in the next three years, which I believe will be the duration of the trial until the final verdict. KRIK has 16 similar SLAPP lawsuits aimed at intimidating, disrupting and, I'm sure, destroying the newsroom. In addition, the editorial office sued tabloids and individuals for defamation and lies told about them. 

The question inevitably came to me, how was it for our colleague Daphne Caruana Galizia from Malta, with 48 SLAPP processes that the powerful led against her, with blocked accounts and harassment by every possible institution in Malta, without the much-needed support of the media community. And with no international support. Yet with a stronger will to continue the investigations that exposed crime and corruption at the top of the EU member state. Doing her job according to journalistic standards, believing in the idea of ​​justice, EU postulates and values. The car she got into in front of her house, to go to the bank to solve the blockage of her account, which is important for the family's existence, exploded from a huge amount of explosives placed under it. 

It's the same feeling when it comes to Ján Kuciak from Slovakia... The lack of strong support and effective protection created an opportunity for the violent to make decisions involving murder. Thus demonstrating the message of what will happen to anyone who touches them. Both investigations and court proceedings take place in a similar atmosphere. Just as it was in our country in the case of the trial of the accused for the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija. Today, the children of Slavko Ćuruvija, the founders of the foundation that bears his name, have become the target of SLAPP lawsuits against former defendants, who were convicted twice in the first instance, then acquitted by a panel of which Judge Djordjević was a member. 

Unsolved cases of threats to KRIK journalists were running through my head. Since records have been kept (starting with 2016), more than ten cases of endangering the safety of members of this newsroom have been reported to the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office. We had raids on the apartments of three members of the KRIK newsroom - those in which values ​​are not taken, but sources, data are sought, what is being worked on, what is the next topic to be investigated... I remember the discussions at the Permanent Working Group for the Safety of Journalists, when I insisted that the investigations be combined, look for coincidences, motives... Nothing was done. I remember submitting request for the monitoring of two members of the newsroom, we struggled for a long time to get the job of checking the cameras done... Even though the monitoring was registered, there were no results. Bojana Pavlović was intercepted by unknown persons (some of whom she identified) and temporarily confiscated her phone during the implementation of her work assignment. No one suffered the consequences. 

And not only is there no justice for these brave and very professional journalists, but they are the target of a whole series of activities aimed at preventing and stopping their work. 

The impunity of threats and violence against journalists encourages and emboldens that violence to continue. 

And court proceedings against journalists for presenting facts and publishing judgments against them stifle freedom of speech and the role of journalists as a "watchdog" of the public interest. 

In the case of KRIK, we have impunity for violence towards the editorial office, but also active processes aimed at intimidating and preventing them from doing their work. 

We also witness joint activities from different directions, by diverse institutions and powerful individuals with the aim for KRIK to be destroyed. 

I really think that there is an ongoing campaign to silence and destroy KRIK, because the newsroom is at the same time facing numerous threats, endangering the safety of journalists, preventing normal work, numerous SLAPP lawsuits, threatened penalties that are a combination of high financial, prison sentences and bans on journalistic work, and constant satanization with lies and slander through tabloids, and very often from the highest positions of executive and legislative power. All together it presents a package for shutting down this newsroom, as well as others that engage in journalism in a similar way, investigating crime and corruption and publishing the facts.

***

When you sit in the courtroom, even though it is only a preliminary hearing, you can easily see the nature of the process, the intentions and the goals. 

I thought that, at the preliminary hearing on the criminal complaint, the plaintiff's lawyers made an error when they proved the fear of the judge and her husband with texts from the Informer, for which, according to defense lawyer Kruna Savović, Stevan Dojčinović sued them. The informant was legally sentenced to compensation for damages and the obligation to publish the judgment in which the lies were proven. However, the representatives of the judge and the husband also present the same evidence in the civil proceedings, the texts for which the tabloid media and authors were convicted with the force of law. This kind of behavior is coercive, because it does not take into account the fact that this argument has already been refuted by final judgments. It represents an additional effort to slander and discredit the editor and the newsroom and it is another proof that this is a SLAPP lawsuit, because regardless of the inaccuracy of the evidence, they are used as content to get additional time... Moreover, through their representative, they say that they were exposed to media lynching, without a single proof, except for that from social networks, from the words of those who comment on the news, without any influence and responsibility of the KRIK newsroom. 

Therefore, the value system relied on by the judge and her husband, the lawyer, is a tabloid lie as evidence against journalists who have been awarded numerous domestic and international awards for their professionalism and ethics. When looking at this list of recognitions, it is impossible to see any logic used by the prosecutors. 

Their representative claims that awards are a way of financing such projects, without a single proof, but it additionally reveals the nature of this lawsuit - it needs to be proven that they are foreign mercenaries, even if they interpret prestigious international awards as a way of financing the work of this newsroom. KRIK, by the way, very transparently presents data on donors and donations. And that is why it is necessary to compromise that transparency by making insinuations. 

Someone who is supposed to protect legislation and constitutional order, relies on the information of those media who are punished almost on  a daily basis for violating the journalistic code, and against those who consistently investigate the pathologies of society and make them public. 

The plaintiff's lawyers are pushing a thesis that has not been proven - that the judge and her husband, the lawyer, are presented as someone who acquired property through crime and corruption. They themselves insist on that intention because there is no evidence that KRIK accused them of such a thing. 

This is also the reason why they oppose the hearing of journalist Jelena Radivojević, who wrote the text that accopmanies data base "Judge Who Judges", accompanying the database, in which there is no statement or insinuation to that effect. The journalist also contacted the judge, who refused to comment on publicly available data. Publicly available facts were published, the judge was offered to provide additional information and arguments, facts, and Jelena Radivojević's completely neutral text about publicly available data was published. All that is enough evidence for the indictment to be dismissed. 

The lawyer of one of the plaintiffs additionally accused all the journalists who followed the hearing of selective reporting and of putting pressure on the court and of working, together with the defendants, on the collapse of the constitutional order. 

The lack of evidence against KRIK newsroom is compensated by serious accusations that the editorial staff, as well as the journalists who report, are working to collapse the constitutional order. Without a single proof. Professional reports from the trial and texts about all the actors of this trial are proclaimed pressure exerted on the court. Another message is that journalists should not report on prosecutors and the trial itself. 

The reports of Vuk Cvijić and Perica Gunjić from the trial objectively convey what happened in the courtroom and provide very useful information for understanding this trial. 

It is very clear how the prosecutor's representatives, the judge and her husband, the lawyer, use the deep political polarization in society, with strong rhetoric in which it is necessary to first stick labels and slanders on enemies, calling them foreign mercenaries, destroyers of the constitutional order, because that  would make them an easier target. And during the trial for the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija, the same qualifications that were used by the Milosevic regime in the nineties could be heard from the defense lawyers, such as׃ traitor, foreign mercenary...

Bojana Pavlović, Stevan Dojčinović and the editorial staff of KRIK are on trial for publishing publicly available information on the website of the State Geodetic Institute. In the absence of an argument to criminalize publicly available facts, the representatives of the lawsuit try to prove that the publication of these data threatens the safety of the judge. And they submit a description of how it is possible "in three steps" with the help of this data to get to the place of residence of the judge and her husband, the lawyer. Therefore, the newsroom did not reveal the whereabouts of this family. But the representatives of the judge seem to want to do it at any cost and provide proof "how it can be done in three steps". Since the editorial office of KRIK only transferred existing data from a publicly available database that anyone can look at, if there is any objection to privacy protection, the right address is the State Geodetic Institute, which certainly does not violate the laws of this country by publishing data that also represents the family's property status of Judge Djordjević and her husband, lawyer Djordjević, without any changes. 

***

This is a typical case for compliance with the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, which [despite it only applies to cross-border cases] still contains interesting mechanisms to combat SLAPP claims such as, for example, giving judges the possibility to dismiss such applications at an early stage as unfounded.

Since the EU's anti-SLAPP directive has not yet been integrated into our legislation, we will witness another agony of KRIK suppression. 

***

In addition to threats, the editorial office regularly faces lawsuits from the powerful who try to stop the work of KRIK, or at least not to write about them. This interference is very noticeable in the case of Minister Nenad Popović, who never appeared at the trials.

The mere review of the names of those who sued KRIK speaks of the dangerous situation in which this newsroom finds itself, and investigative journalism in general, media freedom and freedom of speech in general. This is where the formal and informal power of this state is concentrated. 

The largest number of these lawsuits fall under the term SLAPP lawsuits, which aim to prevent journalists from continuing to deal with topics they have already researched and published, to prevent the newsroom from doing its job through lengthy processes, to demonize the newsroom through the tabloid media and target it in order to be constantly threatened. 

***

I think it is important to globally understand the complexity of the problems faced by journalists and media in Serbia, defenders of freedom of speech and civil society organizations. We are not statistics. So many attacks, so many threats, verbal and physical, so many SLAPP lawsuits, so many attacks on female journalists. All together it's very bad, and that's why we need to protect, stand in solidarity and defend ourselves. 

New hearing  The trial on the criminal charge continues on November 12 at 2 p.m. in courtroom number 13 of the First Basic Court in Belgrade, 15 Katanić Street.

 

This article has been produced with financial support from the European Union, Serbian Ministry of information and telecommunication, Norway and the Balkan Trust for Democracy, a project of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of ANEM and do not reflect the views of the European Union, Serbian Ministry of information and telecommunication, the Government of Norway, GMF BTD or its partners.