OA42: Denny Hastert and the Limits of Contract Law

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:01:17 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode number 42, I am your host Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez, Today's sponsor is Audible, with an unmatched selection of audiobooks, original audio shows, news, comedy, and more. Get a free audiobook with a 30-day trial at audible.com slash lawpod. Torrez, how is it going for you on this particular day, Andrew?

0:01:42 Andrew: It is, uh, I am cautiously optimistic that things are great and will continue to be great. So

0:01:48 Thomas: I'm excited to get right into it. We've got a great listener question for you here.

0:01:53 Clip: He who questions training, only trains himself at asking questions. What?

0:02:01 Thomas: Patron Michael, and I want to make sure to give Michael his full title. Patron, Michael asks, after listening to the first episode of Serious Inquiries Only, a very fine podcast, if I may say so myself, I have a question related to contracts that Scientologists sign. According to Mr. Shelton, and he is my guest I had over there on Serious Inquiries Only, he in the Sea Org, was a longtime Scientologist, basically devoted his whole life to it, and then eventually, I guess, saw through it and left. It's an interesting story, so check that out if you want to hear it. But Mr. Shelton said in that episode, Scientologists sign a billion-year contract in exchange for free access to Scientology services, among other things.

0:02:49 Thomas: The question I have is as follows. Is such a contract enforceable? Is there such a thing as a contract that would be void on its face? It might be that Scientologists' contract is an easy example of such a things, but are there others? I would presume that any contract that required illegal activity would be voided, but what about other circumstances? So lots of questions there. There are lots of good, I think Michael is definitely asking the right questions related to that issue to get at it. So what do you think?

0:03:16 Andrew: Yeah. Um, and this, we're sort of dealing with a lot of different, uh, aspects of contracts here in this episode. So, uh, I thought this was a great question to tackle. Let's start off with the definition of a contract, right? A contract is marked by an offer by one party, acceptance of the full terms by the other party, and consideration that is exchanged between the two parties. So in other words, both sides have to get something of value in order for the law to to declare a contract to be something that we want you to be able to go to court over. So requirement of consideration, if you think about it, you can immediately come up with, you know, with situations, right?

0:04:01 Andrew: Like I say to you, Thomas, I promise I love doing the show with you. This is really awesome. And I promise that when you grow old, I'm just going to take care of you, buddy. Um, and, and I can say that. And if I turn out to be an asshole when you grow old, uh, and I don't take care of you, uh you can't take me to court. Because I've made a one sided promise and there was no consideration, uh back to me. Um and so those kinds of, uh contracts, uh wind up being, uh invalid contracts. Um but what Michael asked is a specific subset set of contracts that are otherwise valid, but become unenforceable because of certain Let me give you a couple of examples of contracts that meet those criteria, There's an offer, there's acceptance, there is consideration. But nevertheless, the contract would be unenforceable for various defects.

0:04:47 Thomas: Weird provisions?

0:05:03 Andrew: Right. So, yeah, go right ahead.

0:05:02 Thomas: Well, let mean, let's go. Let me give a guess while we're at it, I mean, What if we have a fully, everything's drawn up perfectly on the contract, everything's kosher, except the thing that I'm gonna give you is like, yeah, certain circumstances happen, then I'll, uh, you know, chop off my left hand, like, I'm assuming you can't do something like that? Well,

0:05:19 Andrew: Yeah, that, that would fall there. There are two grounds that I can think of under which that would fall. One would be the doctrine of unconscionability, right, which is to say that when a contract is lopsidedly unfair to one party, then you may be able to invalidate that contract by going to court, and what you would have to show is that there were some sort of, uh, unequal bargaining power at play, that there was something that, that, uh, that made you take on a position where you were going to chop off your hand in exchange for you know whatever it is that I'm giving you, right?

0:05:56 Thomas: People don't know how intimidating Andrew Is behind the, off the mic? Yeah.

0:05:58 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, That's, that's very, very true. Um, and, and even if, in the chop off your hand example, uh, even if there was no unequal bargaining power, even if I hadn't coerced you into to that, unconscionable behavior is nevertheless a general doctrine, we're going to talk about this in the main segment, of the notion that a contract can be unenforceable as against public policy. And, Let me give you kind of a classic example of that. And that is you, Thomas, have decided that there's somebody in your life that you wish was no longer in your life, and so you engage the services of a professional hitman, right, and you fill out a contract, right, and you say to the hitman, like, "I want you to, you know, murder my cousin, and in exchange I will give you a hundred thousand dollars," and you sign it, and the hit man signs it, and you give the hitman a hundred thousand, right, like, that's the form of a contract, Yeah.

0:06:02 Thomas: Okay. Yeah, Great contract perfect. Perfect.

0:07:00 Andrew: That's the form of a contract that is perfectly valid. Um, obviously the law will not allow you to get specific performance, right, like, I gave you the hundred grand, now why, why did you go kill my cousin already? Um, but if the hitman absconds with a hundred thousand dollars and you know who he is, like, you can't take him to to court and sue him, uh, with a civil lawsuit to get your hundred thousand dollars back, right, like, it, that's against public policy, because the law has said, "Yeah, yeah, we're not going to allow you to memorialize, you know, your contract for criminal behavior." And so, as a result, think that, know, if, if there's a risk that people pay hit men and get defrauded, like, you know, stop paying hit men. Right. So, so that's the, that's the position that the law takes with respect to being void is against public policy. There are other areas in which you could, in which a contract that is otherwise of the proper form could become void.

0:07:07 Thomas: Right.

0:07:59 Andrew: And that is if one or more of the parties, you know, lacked the capacity to enter into the agreement in the first place. Right. Right. So how do you lack the capacity to enter into a contract? Well, you could be under the age of 18. You could have that classic sitcom scenario of, you know, I've gotten drunk and then signed up for the Marines or whatever. Right. Like if you were if you can introduce evidence to show that you were blackout drunk at the time that you signed the contract, you might be able to avoid that contract and say there was a lack of capacity. Past. I didn't under, I literally didn't understand what I was signing. Um, you know, if, if you sign a contract in French and you don't speak French, right. Um. Uh, and there's a, there's a, related doctrine, uh, called the doctrine of impossibility.

0:08:45 Andrew: I thought you might have been going for this when you came up with the hand-chopping-off thing. Uh. If, if the contract requires one party to perform something that is impossible, that contract is void. And that is the long winded answer to the billion year Scientology contract. We know that you cannot fulfill a billion year contract. Yeah, well, I think we do.

0:09:06 Thomas: Do We how many thetans do you have? No, I don't know. I was gonna try

0:09:12 Andrew: Yeah. So that kind of a contract would be unenforceable. It would be unenforceable because, you know, nobody can fulfill the terms of a billion-year deal.

0:09:26 Thomas: Yeah, all right, well, I, I don't know how, uh, contracts in the afterlife are supposed to work, but I guess they'll just have to, once they get to the afterlife, they'll have to drop a new one, I think, and I'll just be subject to different laws, afterlife contract law, right?

0:09:38 Andrew: You know, there have been a number of kind of funny legal cases where, you know, somebody has said, you know, they want to sue, you know, Jesus Christ or the devil or whatever. And usually the way courts handle that is by dismissing the case for lack of service of process, right? Which is to say, you have to prove, if I were to sue you, Thomas, I would have to proof that I have given you a copy of the lawsuit in advance. That's what you have respond to. And so that is called service of process, right, and process referring to the papers. And what you typically do is you hire a professional who will do this at a fixed rate.

And then that professional fills out an affidavit and says, "Yes, I went to Thomas's house and I put the lawsuit in his hands and walked off." When it comes to these lawsuits where people have, you know, sued Jesus or Satan or whatever, they have said, "We don't have any proof that you were able to deliver the lawsuit to the the party, so we're going to dismiss that case out." So, um, so I suspect, I suspect that the afterlife, uh, lawsuits and the thetans would, uh, would, would be met with the same kind of problem of, uh, "Well, we don't know how to serve your thetan."

0:10:15 Thomas: Right.

0:10:45 Thomas: Okay, darn.

0:10:57 Thomas: Yep.

0:10:57 Andrew: And we, so

0:11:00 Thomas: All right, well, thanks for asking that, Patron Michael, thanks for the answer, uh, host Andrew.

0:11:05 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, one of the other reasons that I took that question, Thomas, is that I have been listening, through our sponsor Audible, to Lawrence Wright's Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, which is, it's super interesting. I wanted to watch the documentary, but, you know, just opened up my new office in Towson, so I have a long commute again when I'm going in and from work. Yeah.

0:11:17 Thomas: Yeah.

0:11:29 Thomas: You don't want to be watching that show on the drive, but what you can do, listen to a book on Audible.

0:11:31 Andrew: Yeah. Right. It works, yeah, really, really well for, for me, for something like that, where, know, I really want to get the documentary content and I don't need it in the visual form. Um, and, you know, I'm otherwise sort of stuck in my car on that commute, know, I, and do listen to our show like three or four times in a row, uh, but eventually, eventually yeah, I gotta listen to something else, uh-huh.

0:11:51 Thomas: It's a must be a long commute, yeah. I absolutely love Audible. I, now, you know, I work from home now, so I don't have a commute, but what I do have is chores and housework and just random and going on walks as well. And I love having Audible plugged in, because I was realizing I can get just so much more information into my brain than I would be if I was listening to music or if I was not listening to anything. I really love it. You know what else I love about Audible? Is the app is really good. There's some features where you can like take notes on the app, can, there's good chapter navigation. And Andrew, I haven't read that Scientology book, I wonder if, if there's anything we could do about that.

0:12:08 Andrew: Yeah, Yeah, the Audible app send this book feature. So I can send that over to you and you can accept it and listen to the book for free.

0:12:48 Thomas: Really cool feature. Yeah. Currently I'm listening to Paul Bloom's Against Empathy because there's been a lot of talk about that over on my show, Serious Inquiries Only. And I decided, what I, I don't have time to sit down and read the book, I just really don't, but I do have time to pop it in the old headphones while I'm doing work, doing, taking a walk, driving, whatever it is, I really love it. If people want to get that free trial, they need to go to audible.com slash law pod, you'll get 30 days free, you'll get a free audio book, and if you become a member, you get a free audio book every month. And that's a good pace. I mean, if you read a book a month, Andrew, how much smarter would you be? I mean, I think it would be, or maybe, maybe they've got all kinds of genres, maybe you're reading fantasy or maybe your reading something else.

0:12:57 Andrew: Yeah.

0:13:35 Andrew: Well, where I use Audible is everyone knows that listens to the show that I'm homeschooling my son. And so I have been listening to a lot of the Great Courses series. And, you know, as a preview of using that in my homeschool curriculum. So, so we, we actually both wind up using it. I listened to it first. Um, you know, they're these, you know, kind of long, 12 hour, um, I, and I'm super into that for reasons that will not surprise anyone who listens to the show, uh, but I, but I can do that while, um, you know, preparing his curriculum, so, um, that, that was incredibly useful for me

0:14:07 Thomas: Yeah, exactly. So audible.com, A-U-D-I-B-L-E.com slash law pod. That is L-A-W-P-O-D. Check it out. I highly recommend it. I use it every day. And Andrew, I know this, but you can't make more time, but you can make the most of it. So turn your chores into something or your commute into something more with a free trial at Audible. Go to audible.com slash lawpod to start now.

0:14:37 Thomas: Right, Andrew, time for our main topic of the day. We've already alluded this relates to contracts a little bit, but boy, we've got a doozy of a news story here. Um, I love this, uh, right, yes. Yes, Dennis Hastert was, he used to be Speaker of the House, and he was eventually, it eventually became clear that he had a history, a very disgusting history of child sex abuse scandals, right? And he paid somebody, or he agreed to pay somebody, one of the victims, hush money. But he stopped because, I guess, once you're found out, then maybe the hush money is not so relevant anymore, more.

So, you know, why am I paying a guy to keep quiet about something that everybody already knows about? So he stopped paying. The victim sued to get the rest of his hush money. And then, if I understand this right, he's countersuing to get the money he's already paid for hushed money. So this is a mess. It's hilarious. It is sad. It's disgusting and sad, but it's also kind of funny in a weird way, detached from everything. It's funny that you're trying to get your hush money back. I can't

0:14:44 Andrew: Yes.

0:15:30 Andrew: It's Yeah, yeah,

0:15:41 Thomas: Help but be a little amused by this lawsuit. So that being said, what is happening here? What is going to happen? Who is right in this situation, if anyone?

0:15:41 Andrew: Yeah, well, look, we had, we know, we know Hastert was not right. Um, but yeah, just, I mean, we shouldn't have to say that on this show, but, uh, yeah, he was a, he was a wrestling coach. And, um, when, uh. This individual who, um, is named in the lawsuit, but obviously we're, we're not going to name, uh, him on the show. Uh, but when he was 14, uh, Hastert molested this boy and then agreed to pay $3.5 million in hush money. And then over the 4, 1.5 years since the incident, Hastert has paid $1.7 million to him. So and then just like you said, in December of 2014, the FBI got a tip and started investigating the started investigating Hastert.

0:15:54 Thomas: Yeah, let's go ahead and say that. Yeah, sure.

0:16:48 Andrew: And the reason they were doing so is because Hastert was now out of political office, retired, and yet was continuing to make these really, really large withdrawals from his bank account. And so something that didn't necessarily engender a lot of suspicion when you are a speaker of the House of Representatives and you have a lot of expenses and you travel and everything else, all of a sudden was very suspicious to this politician who was retired. And so the FBI investigated, they discovered, they tracked the payments, they put together a case, and Hastert is serving a prison sentence, a 15-month prison sentence on the bank fraud. Right.

0:17:32 Thomas: So just on the bank fraud, he hasn't been convicted of anything else.

0:17:33 Andrew: Yeah, right. Correct. Earlier this year, actually in 2016, the victim filed a breach of contract lawsuit and that breach of contract lawsuit said Hastert agreed to pay three and a half million. He's only paid 1.7. And so it sought the balance of the money. Let's start off with that one. Okay. This, I think, yeah, yeah.

0:17:36 Thomas: Okay. Yeah. I was going to say, maybe I should take a guess if you don't. So one question It's sort of related to what we already talked about with the Scientology contract is, is a hush money contract enforceable or legal? That kind of thing, right? Is that one? I'm guessing that's one. So, you know what? I would guess in this case, I Guess that you could actually structure that contract in a way that would be legal. I'm Guessing, but I don't, I'm not, I'm not 100% sure on that. I don't want this to be a bar exam question. But I don't know. Something tells me that that could be done.

0:18:18 Andrew: Exactly right.

0:18:37 Andrew: Okay, and what makes you think that?

0:18:39 Thomas: I don't think you're doing anything illegal by not coming out with information from the past if you're the victim. I think you're allowed to do that. So it wouldn't be totally against the law to sort of almost sell your rights to do that. But I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe I'm wrong on that. I just, I also, what tells me that is the fact that the contract still exists at all. I don't know. I just figured that would have been, if it was an obviously dismissible thing, who knows if we would still be having this conversation. But those are my instincts. Tell me if I'm right. Wait,

0:19:15 Andrew: And I think your instincts are correct. And what I would say is that this, I have not seen the underlying contract that as far as to the best of my knowledge, that has not been made public. So I think this is going to be a close call. Every attorney and every judge would agree is a perfectly legal way of, of structuring this transaction. Okay. And that is, um, this, this person, um individual a, uh publicly sues Hastert for, uh the torts committed when he was sexually abused. Right. And, um for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for everything that's associated with that, assault, you for battery, for unwanted touching, for unwanted sexual touching, right? There are numerous torts for which you could sue somebody civilly and seek damages. And then as part of that that process, Hastert agrees to a settlement and says, what I want to do is I don't want to fight this lawsuit anymore.

0:20:27 Andrew: I want to recompense you for your injuries in connection with the sexual abuse that you claim that you've suffered. That's perfectly fine. Right. Like, and and and that would be the case. Right, it would be the case if it were a wrongful death suit. Right, and it was the estate, uh, charging somebody, you know, who's who's murdered, uh, someone, and then says, okay, uh, know, we we kind of agree on what the main issues are, there's no need to go to trial, let's reach an agreement and compensate you for that wrongful death. And so, just as you could be compensated for wrongful death in a settlement, you could become compensated for, uh, sexual abuse in a settlement, even though, right, the underlying activity, you might think about it and say, well, pay you somebody for the right to murder them, right?

0:21:13 Andrew: Like, you know, the contract for hire. But you could settle a lawsuit. And that's how the plaintiffs are going to characterize this agreement. They're going to say that this was to compensate the victim and should be treated like a settlement. What Hastert is going to say is this was paid to for me to shut up, and I did, up until the point where I was arrested.

0:21:38 Thomas: What Hastert is going to say?

0:21:39 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah, Hastert is going to say, uh, in trying to get the contract declared unenforceable, right, is going to say thrown

0:21:48 Thomas: Right, because he's trying to get the original contract.

0:21:51 Andrew: Out.

0:21:51 Thomas: That's kind of counterintuitive. I see. Okay.

0:21:52 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. He's going to saying, no, no, no, this, this was never designed to, know, compensate him for any injuries. This was just hush money, right? I did something wrong and I was being extorted to pay the three and a half million bucks or else, you know, this victim was going to go public and ruin my life.

0:21:54 Thomas: Yeah. Hmm. Hmm. Yeah.

0:22:14 Andrew: And so the question is, you know, sort of where on the spectrum, you know, the, the court is going to characterize that case. That's a tough question, in, right, in the process of getting the contract thrown out, um, I, I could talk about some of the, um, affirmative defenses that you would allege, uh, as the defendant, as Hastert, uh, that sort of go along with it. So, for example, something that is, is commonly alleged, uh, in any kind of, uh, tort situation is the doctrine of unclean hands, right? And unclean hands is, a it's, it's exactly what it sounds like, it says, uh, if the, the plaintiff is coming to a tortious situation seeking damages where they themselves are have committed some sort of wrong, wrong that makes it inequitable for the court to award the plaintiff any money, that the court is entitled to just sort of throw up its hands and say, yeah, you know what? Not dealing with this.

0:23:20 Thomas: Interesting.

0:23:21 Andrew: That happens. The last time I litigated a case like this, I actually didn't get an answer on it because it, it, uh, it made sense to settle the case instead, but it was, um, it was an FLSA case, right? Like we talked about two weeks ago, uh, and the plaintiff, uh, who was alleging that he had not been paid sufficient overtime, was an illegal alien, right? And so the question was, uh, and and he was not only an illegal agent, right, like you can, you could imagine a very unsympathetic, uh, FLSA a case where, you know, the employer brings over an illegal alien and says, now you're here illegally, so I'm not going to pay you what you're worth. And, uh, and if you breathe a word of this to anybody, I'm going to call INS, right, and get you deported. Right. So in that sort of situation, you would say the fact that the, the would be plaintiff, you know, his, his legal status is not relevant.

0:23:21 Thomas: Oh,

0:24:15 Andrew: In this case, client, the defendant employer, had INS-approved procedures in place, right? Like required employees to fill out I-9s, did the investigation, took down the driver's licenses, whatever. Yes, exactly. And the plaintiff used a fake social security number, used a fraudulent ID and passed himself off as an American citizen. So, you know, defrauded my client and my client's position was, well, I would never have hired this guy. By the process. I would never have hired this guy if, um, if I knew that he was not here legally. And so then the question becomes for purposes of a motion for summary judgment, uh, with that as an established fact, uh. Is the, uh., illegal, uh,. Immigration status of the plaintiff, does that that serve, uh, as unclean hands sufficient for the court to bounce the whole lawsuit?

0:24:25 Thomas: Okay. Did his due diligence, essentially.

0:25:21 Andrew: And the answer to that, this is in Maryland. And the answer in Maryland is we don't know, we're not sure. Um, there seems to be lot of case law that, uh suggests that, the unclean and hands defense should apply to an FLSA action. But there are a minority of cases that go the other way. That minority, I think, is based on the principles that I just described to you, right? Like you could easily imagine an employer abusing that situation, again, which was not the case here. So ultimately, you know, rather than take the risk on litigating that case out, um, you know, we settled, uh, but I would, I would point out, um, the, the reason why it was important, uh, again, sort of going back to the FLSA episodes, was, uh, this was the last chance. This was summary judgment. This was the last chance to avoid going to trial.

And at trial, right, you remember, under the FLSA, uh, if the plaintiff wins even a dollar, all of the attorney's fees, you know know, sort of spring forward. So that was really kind of a linchpin of what was going on. All of that is to say is just to kind of give some color on the defense of unclean hands, that it's a judgment call, right? And it is up to the court to say,

0:25:46 Thomas: Yeah, hold

0:26:32 Andrew: And the idea is that the court looks at it and says, you know what, literally, I'm just going to wash my hands of both of you, more at fault, who's worse at fault. When you have two scoundrels, then the court can just say, you know what, I'm done. I'm not dealing with this. And you might think of it as being related to, we've talked about the difference between comparative negligence and contributory negligence, right? Right. Like contributory negligence says if you contributed to the negligence in any way, if you're also negligent, then the case gets bounced distinguish that from the modern doctrine of comparative negligence where, you know, you apportion the fault as between the plaintiff and defendant. Here, obviously, unclean hands requires more than just negligence. Right. Like it requires you to have affirmatively committed some wrong. You know, in my case, the example was only coming into the country illegally, but defrauding your employer by producing fraudulent documents and assuming a fraudulent name and ID, which, you know, does expose that employer to potential legal liability.

0:26:54 Thomas: Interesting, yeah,

0:27:45 Andrew: Right, like it's not just, you, I'm not just going "America first" on us here. And so then the question is, is private recompense from someone who has sexually abused you? Is that, um, if that seems to contain a a hush money component to it, right, like, is, is that something the court is going to see as, um, being unclean hand? Now, I, I don't, my gut is probably not, right, my, my gut is that uh, yeah, yeah,

0:28:15 Thomas: Yeah. Cause it is kind of like a settlement, but I guess it's just not officially a settlement.

0:28:20 Andrew: But the one thing that you, you have to be careful with is, um, you can settle out liability, uh, but you don't want to use the process, uh, to suggest that you are bringing, you know, the undue influence of, um, of other potential legal procedures, right? So, for example, the same, the same case that I talked about, we were very, very clear when we raised to the unclean hands defense that that there was no retaliation going on, right? That we were not saying at any point, "Hey, you need to drop this lawsuit or we're going to have your guy deported," right? Like, it was, that was a a key part of my, uh, advice to my client was, you know, look, you don't want, you to don't want to be bringing undue and unfair pressure on somebody because of a situation that is, you know, potentially embarrassing, that, that gives you, you shouldn't have in a civil case.

0:29:13 Andrew: The bottom line, I think, that's that's important here is that on both of these, I Think it's going to be a judgment call. I do not see how you could prevail on unclean hands without prevailing in the main on Hastert's position in the lawsuit. Right. Like, in other words, either the court thinks that this is a hush money lawsuit and therefore I'm not going to you know, it's it's an unenforceable contract. I'm going to throw the whole thing out or they do not. But I can't imagine.

0:29:43 Thomas: So, So if they do that, would he have no way to get back his original money pretty much?

0:29:48 Andrew: Well, and that's so let's let's turn to what what Hastert is going to do here is he filed a counterclaim. OK, and you can do this when somebody sues you. Usually I'm

0:29:56 Thomas: Yeah. So, so far you were just talking about whether or not, so you're just talking about, well, there's a couple lawsuits. You were just telling me that you were talking about the one where the victim was trying to get the rest of his money. Now we're switching over to the countersuit, I guess.

0:30:02 Andrew: The lawsuit itself. Yeah, correct.

0:30:14 Andrew: Right. Right. And so, so what, what Hastert did was answered that, that complaint, right? Said, no, I do not owe you the $1.8 million. And then he said, oh, and by the way, you owe me the 1.7 million that I've already, uh, that I'm already paid. And here's, uh. And, and there are two causes of action here. Um, the first is a breach of contract action, and here's what Hester says. Says. Um, it says paragraph one, pleading in the alternative. Um. Remember that, that uh Hastert's answer is there was not a valid contract. Right.

0:30:15 Thomas: Okay. Okay.

0:30:49 Andrew: But one of the things you can do in a complaint or in your answer to the complaint is you can plead in the the alternative. Okay. You can say, I deny that there was a valid contract. However, if there was a valid contact, then the plaintiff breached it. Right. And you can plead both of those. So specifically, uh, if you, if you draw the court's attention to the fact that you're doing so without there being, um, you know, without it being a contradiction, right. And you can sort of say, uh we're going to allow, you know, as the facts come in, if this court determines that there was a contract, you know, we're not without an argument on that. So we deny that there's a contract, but in the alternative, if there is a contract then plaintiff breached it. And what's the argument that plaintiff breach? It's very, very simple, right?

0:31:36 Andrew: So is starting at paragraph four of the counterclaim of count one. Plaintiff has alleged the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between plaintiff and defendant and pursuant to that contract defendant paid plaintiff 1.7 million. Paragraph five, plaintiff was obligated to keep the existence of the alleged agreement along with its subject matter confidential. Six, contrary to his obligations, plaintiff disclosed both the existence and the subject matter of the agreed, of the alleged agreement. Seven, to the extent that any contract existed, plaintiff breached that contract and therefore resulted in damages and is required to return the $1.7 million. So Hastert's argument here is that if you're going to characterize this on the settlement side of the spectrum, right, as compensation for the abuse, then one of the terms in our settlement agreement was confidentiality.

0:31:25 Thomas: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And

0:32:29 Andrew: And you violated that term. Therefore, breached the agreement, um, absolutely.

0:32:34 Thomas: Confidentiality, when you're talking about settlements, is something that happens, right? I feel like I've heard of that before. Yeah. So that's not unreasonable.

0:32:39 Andrew: Yeah. All The time And It, and and And in a way that that comes up to the line against this sort of case, right? Like, So, you know, think about, um, this is a plug for having, uh, just done a Law'd Awful Movies of Runaway Jury, um, which, if, uh, patrons, if you haven't downloaded that, that was, uh, hilarious. We had a lot of fun with, uh, the guys from Cognitive Dissonance, um, but in Runaway Jury, right, one of the things that's always present in the background is, uh, if, uh, this case goes to a verdict, right, this is what, uh, you know, John Cusack Continues to Say, you know, uh, and and even, uh, you know, even Gene Hackman, when he's trying to extort more money out of the, uh, the evil, uh, gun company, uh, CEOs, he says, "Look, if you take a verdict on this, then that, that will open the floodgates and everybody will sue you and you'll be sued out of existence."

So if there were a settlement in a case like that, you would have a settlement in which the conditions and the amount of money of the settlement would be kept confidential, because the primary thing you're buying with that settlement is we don't want to have to deal with these kinds of cases anymore. And so if you show the magnitude of the settlement, right, like, it's the same kind of problem. So now, philosophically,

0:32:48 Thomas: Yeah, oh yeah, yeah.

0:33:59 Andrew: Yeah, I'm

0:33:58 Thomas: So let me ask you this. I didn't catch the part, and do we know the facts on whether the victim was the one who kind of leaked this? He kind of did, because I thought the facts were that Hastert was just discovered through some other means. I didn't know that the victim actually violated, I suppose, the confidentiality component. Do you have any firm facts on that?

0:34:21 Andrew: Yeah. And so the answer to that is that the victim was involved in the investigations. And so here's how the Chicago Tribune puts it. I haven't done any separate research into this, and I want to tread particularly lightly given the nature of the allegations. But here's what the Chicago tribune says. They say the case against Hastert began to unfold after a bank noticed Hastert making suspicious withdrawals. In December of 2014, FBI agents confronted Hastert. Hastert told the FBI agents that he was trying to keep his money safe, but later alleged he was the victim of an extortion plot. At the request of authorities, Hastert secretly recorded two calls to Individual A, that is the victim, to catch him making threats, but the agents soon realized that it was Hastert who was lying.

0:35:10 Andrew: So the answer to the question, as far as I can see, is this was It was not a situation where the victim took the money and then went to the authorities and, you know, yeah, spilled the beans.

0:35:22 Thomas: Right. Spilled the beans. Yeah.

0:35:24 Andrew: Yeah. But it was a case where once things started unraveling, participated in the process. So, yeah. So you're you are absolutely right that there is.

0:35:34 Thomas: So, a little fuzzy there. I don't know if this will be a quick answer, but hypothetically, let's separate. Forget everything else about sex abuse and just talk about a normal. Let's say you and I have some contract tract of confidentiality about a certain fact, and then separate from you and I, the fact becomes totally clear to the entire public. Can I still not talk about it or something? Or like, how would that work?

0:35:38 Andrew: Right. Um.

0:36:01 Andrew: It would, it would depend on the agreement. But Yeah.

0:36:02 Thomas: Oh, on the language? Okay.

0:36:04 Andrew: But, but by and large, uh, if it's a, if it's standard form confidentiality agreement, yeah, even if it is public knowledge, you can't talk about it. Now, uh, fact that it becomes public knowledge would affect any lawsuit in two ways, right? Number one, it would make it almost impossible for you to prove that I've talked about at it, right?

0:36:04 Thomas: I still can't talk about Otis.

0:36:23 Andrew: Right. Because how would you, you know, right, yeah.

0:36:23 Thomas: Oh, okay. Well, no, I mean, if you if I because I could see thinking, you know, oh, this is all out there. So sure, I can and do an interview where I talk about Andrew's insane recording habits and how they're being, no, whatever it is. Uh, uh, but and then I, what I thought you were going to say was how could I, how could you ever prove you were harmed by me doing it?

0:36:30 Andrew: Right. Yeah. There, you go that's a, that's that's that keen, uh, bar review legal mind at work. Um, yeah, no, so the second aspect, uh, that I was about, because I did say I was going to tell you two things. Um, So,

0:36:43 Thomas: Yeah. Okay. I'm learning. I'm leaning. Ah, okay. Good. I guess the second one.

0:36:55 Andrew: Yeah, the second one is, right, that like, it would be very difficult to prove damages, uh, in that case. And when, when you breach a contract, in order to relieve you of the obligations under that contract, it has to be a material breach of that contract. And so at the point at which violating the confidentiality is no longer material because the information has become ubiquitous and is out there, that would certainly be the primary defense argument is that this is not a material bridge of the contract. So, you know, really easy way to think about that is, you know, we have a standard sales agreement, and it requires you to sign off on the bill of lading.

And all of a sudden, there's, you Know, one bill of lading where, you know, you, you don't sign in the right place, or you forget the signature or whatever. And I come back and say, Aha, you know,you violated the contract by not signing, it says right here in paragraph 13, you've got to sign all the forms, you didn't, therefore, I'm not going to pay you any money. And, you you know, and obviously in a situation like that,

0:37:11 Thomas: Yeah.

0:37:57 Andrew: The court would say, yeah, that's not to the extent that there's a breach. That's not a material breach of the contract. He fulfilled his obligations under the contract, pay him his damn money. So, yep.

0:38:02 Thomas: Yeah, okay, okay yeah. Well shoot Shoot, overall, I don't know if you intended to render an overall opinion on this. I don'T know. It's kind of sounding like if indeed, now I know this is kind of seedy stuff and it's weird to sell your, you know, rights to, to press charges in a way, but I mean, if the victim wasn't the one who spilled the beans on everything, I almost think, I, I almost think you got to pay him his hush money. I think it's, you agreed to it. It's kinda like a settlement, you know, I mean people settle for stuff. I don't know. What do you think? Am I out of line with that?

0:38:41 Andrew: Well, I take your point. I did not get to the second count of the, uh, counterclaim, which I Want to talk really, really quickly about just because it might change your view a little little bit, um, and that is Oh, It's no, No, it's okay, it's okay, um, But that is, in uh, addition to breach of contract, there is a counterclaim for unjust enrichment, right? And unjust enrichment is what you sue for when you can't prove a contract, but you have nevertheless conferred a benefit upon someone, right?

And so in that situation, right, like this is the classic example of uh, the I hire you to paint my fence, uh, we haggle over the price, there's some dispute as to what we agree on, and then you paint my fence anyway, and I watch you paint my fence, right? You can sue me for unjust enrichment because you have conferred that benefit upon me. You've painted my fence.

And you might not be able to prove the contract, but you can get something for the value of that benefit that you've conferred upon me that you would not have done in the absence of our contractual negotiations.

0:38:46 Thomas: Oh, sure. Oh, okay. Maybe I shouldn't have. Go ahead.

0:39:45 Andrew: And so the unjust enrichment argument here is just prior to receiving the benefit of one point seven million dollars, plaintiff promised that he would keep his allegations of defendant's conduct confidential despite having disclosed his allegations of misconduct. Plaintiff has wrongfully retained the benefit of the one point six million dollars that he received from defendant to defendant's detriment. So two ways of going about recovering the money. Um, I think, uh, I fall somewhere in between, uh. Your assessment, which is plaintiff is going to get the balance of the 1.8 million. And, uh lean more heavily towards, uh the court is going throw the whole thing out is going to yeah.

0:40:24 Thomas: Yeah, I was going to say that. Yeah. It's sort of like, ah, this is weird. The court's going to saying, hey, this weird. We don't, I don't like this.

0:40:27 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. And and that's and it's where I wanted to get to, because that's Hastert's strategy. Hastert does not seriously. He is.

0:40:39 Thomas: Well, but then, but okay. So do you he's given up on the money he's already paid essentially?

0:40:43 Andrew: I, I do not think he is seriously thinking that he's going to get the the the one point seven million back. And I doubt that this person, you know, I mean, that's one point seventy one point six million. Don't get me wrong. It's a lot of money paid over 40 years. Right. Like this is just a, this is a private person, you know, it was paid over 41 and a half years. Uh, yeah.

0:40:48 Thomas: Okay. Okay. Oh man. I didn't, didn't know that, okay.

0:41:07 Andrew: And so, you know, there, not, Hastert has that kind of money. Uh, but, uh, but I, I doubt that this person, uh, that the victim has that kind of money. It is designed to kind of muddy the waters, uh, and throw the whole thing out. And so I find it encouraging that you think that on balance that there may be an opportunity for the plaintiff to recover the balance because, this is – the strategy that's being done here is a strategy that is designed to kind of equalize everything and kind of cause the court to throw up its hands. And so, you know, the question is, do you want to, do you want to reward that strategy from somebody who's engaged in, you know, objectively terrible behavior.

0:41:07 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, Yeah.

0:41:51 Andrew: You know, that's, it's a why we wanted to.

0:41:53 Thomas: That's a tough one, that's a that's Certainly A Muddy Case, and I lean toward, I think he should be required to pay, but I, it's a little fuzzy on whether or not the victim did violate that, that confidentiality thing, which I think if you are going to get hush money and you are doing it right, you need to do it right going to you do need to hush. And if it is part of your settlement, I do think that if you're framing it as a settlement, I, I do think that's a reasonable condition of a settlement. So it does hinge on that a little bit, but it sounds like, from what I'm getting, it sounds like he pretty much lived up to that. So I don't know. I think that prediction-wise, it sounds reasonable to me, to my novice ears, that you're saying that the court might just go, "Feh," with all of it because it's too, know, too weird. That sounds reasonable because it is certainly a weird, seedy kind of case, but okay.

0:41:56 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah.

0:42:46 Andrew: Look,

0:42:47 Thomas: Interesting.

0:42:47 Andrew: It is. This is something I tell my clients all the time. It is a challenge to maintain a lawsuit where, where, uh, you have to, how you have to parse your story carefully. Right. Uh, and so, you know, look, I wasn't, you know, none of us were there. None of us know exactly what it is, but, but if, uh, this was truly sort of a, uh, you know, a kind of hush money, above, uh, and beyond, uh, everything else, um, it's hard to go forward as a plaintiff and deny that aspect of the story, you, it, it, it makes it a challenge to get up and fully and forthrightly describe what's going on. And I don't know if, if you are, if you were to fully and forthright, like if you were to get up on the stand and say, you know, under cross-examination, you know, you knew, didn't you, that when you were accepting this money, that a condition of accepting this money was that you not tell anybody about it, right?

0:43:45 Andrew: And that's a tough question. That's a tough question to answer, right. Look, you'd have to be very, very careful in cross-examining, cross-examining. That is an outstanding use of the word. You'd have be very, very careful in cross-examining a witness who has been such a profound victim like this, uh, But I think you could do it right, like I think he could say, uh, And And, and you did know, uh, when you were receiving these payments that, uh, a condition of receiving these payments was your silence, wasn't it? And, and however you answer that, I mean, it's sort of the classic, uh, question, because however you answer that question is going to be a problem for your case, right? So, uh, It's, it's tough, it's tough, so

0:44:02 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, very fascinating. I think it's an interesting issue and, uh, I think that it does highlight a lot of the quirks of contract law that was sort of the goal of this episode. So good stuff. Thanks for breaking that down for us, Andrew, and onward to the rest of the show. For a second listener question for the day, anonymous, now I don't know, or is if this, is this the hacker grouper, is this just an anonymous person we don't know, but asks, what are the consequences of hacking people? I'm just kidding.

Since there, there are so many states talking about legalizing marijuana, this is something we've talked, it's come up on the show before, but it sounds like maybe this specific question hasn't come up yet. I have to ask about companies that have a zero drug policy stance. I'm guessing he means like zero tolerance kind of drug policy. Can you legally get fired if you consume recreationally at home, like other people would have a beer? So what's the impact of marijuana being legalized? I know there's still state, there's lots of states where you can be fired for anything, right, but but so, so how does this break down?

0:44:27 Andrew: Yep. Cool.

0:44:44 Clip: The law breaking down

0:45:01 Andrew: And Uh, you have, uh, hit on the the key aspect of the answer here, which is to say that most contracts are contracts at will. And in a contract at will, you can be terminated at any time for any reason, so long as that termination does not violate the law. And so if you are an at-will employee, the first part of the answer is you could work for a company that says, we're going to fire you if you drink beer You know, in in in your off time, right? Like, so the comparison is, you know, I mean, you don't you don'T have a constitutional right, sadly, to drink a beer.

0:45:47 Thomas: Mm-hmm. Yeah.

0:46:07 Thomas: How Do we change that, let's, let's Let's Get to Get the Word out

0:46:18 Andrew: that'S, that's, you Know, we talk about having focused lobbying efforts, but I think, I think a constitutional amendment to give you the right to drink beer would be a, an exceptional and worthy cause that I could get behind. Of all humor aside, I've mentioned this several times before, but the implication of this is that for individuals who are members of minority groups where those groups are not a protected class that's identified in various anti-discrimination ordinances like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you may be terminated for being a member of those groups. And and may have no recourse, right? So we've talked about, you know, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which, um, has been brought up in, uh, I think, each of the last six or seven congresses and has just, you know, failed to make it out. Um, I don't know, uh, that, you know, we would even try, uh, that the legislators would even cry, uh, under President Trump, it failed to get to to the desk of Barack Obama,

0:46:24 Thomas: Yeah. Like

0:47:23 Andrew: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would have done is added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes for purposes of federal anti-discrimination acts. And in the absence of that, we're left with judicial interpretation. We've talked about this before as well, right? Which is to say, does prohibition on the basis of sex cover gender identity? Does it cover sexual orientation? Some cases say yes, some cases say no. So, know, you don't have, the bottom line is in, there are 20 states that have sexual orientation as a protected class as a matter of law in state anti-discrimination laws. Because of those 20 states, you, if you are gay, if you were transgender, you not have the assurance that your boss can't fire you simply for who you are.

0:48:19 Andrew: Now let's translate that into the marijuana context. What this means is, even if you live in Colorado, even, even if you live in an area where marijuana use has been legalized as opposed to decriminalized, your employer is free to fire you for that reason, for using it recreationally. They're free to impose, a private employers, I should say, are free to impose drug testing, uh, and are free to make their, termination, uh, decisions, uh, even though, uh, that you can be legally, uh, found criminally, uh, uh, guilty for using marijuana, uh, uh, you can nevertheless, uh, be fired from your job and you know, the fact that they don't do it on the basis of drinking a beer is just a function of you know how much beer is Yeah, ingrained into our culture, right?

So, you know, I think, look, I think that is changing, um, mean we used to debate in law school, uh, the decriminalization of marijuana as a hypothetical, and, um, I don't think any of us really expected, I don't know, maybe some of the like hardcore libertarian and pot smokers that I knew back in law school thought that we might get to this place. But, you know, there's...

There's kind of a, there is an emerging consensus, particularly in, I was going to say people our age, but people my age and younger, know, towards at least decriminalization, if not legalization of marijuana. Marijuana, and and and and I think then the question of, you know, what happens from a social standpoint sort of follows behind, uh, you know, what happens from a legal perspective, right?

Like we know that laws can shape behavior, um, a really good example of that, I know this is a bit of a rabbit trail, but a really good example of that is, um,

0:49:09 Thomas: Societal Norms Yeah. Yeah.

0:50:10 Andrew: With seatbelts, right? Like it, it has become in the, uh, uh, sort of two decades since states have been, uh, putting mandatory seatbelt provisions into place. Um, the, the driving habits of people have changed as a result of that legal status changing. Right. And so even though, you know, people don't, get hardly ever get ticketed for not wearing their seatbelts, but similarly, like, I mean, I can't remember the last time I got into a car with somebody, uh, even, you know, as two adults sitting in the front seat and we didn't put our seatbelts on, right, like that change to the law prompted a change in behavior So

0:50:42 Thomas: Well, And Your Stupid Car will ding at you for hours So It doesn't Even Yeah, It's not even an option, crazy, yeah,

0:50:47 Andrew: Oh My Gosh. Yeah. No. But Even you know, even in older cars without that, right, Like the, that we see a change to the behavior, so um, you know, so I would say the the short answer the question is yes, you can legally be fired, just like if you were having a beer. Uh, that's a real risk in a lot of areas, particularly with a lot of um, you know, older school Colorado uh employers, um.

0:51:12 Thomas: And Is there there no real legal remedy for this? Is the remedy pretty much social? Like it's pretty much, well, this is going to be the new norm, so we just need to wait till everybody adjusts. Or I guess it would, is it something where maybe a certain town, city, whatever the unit is, but maybe a place thinks, let's pass a little law or statute here to try to force this societal diet will change because we're tired of not being able to smoke our marijuana or something like that.

0:51:46 Andrew: And, I think that before you would get to a point where uh, it would be a political solution. It would be a social solution, right? Like if if you have enough notes to pass, a law that would protect smoking marijuana as a reason you can't be fired, then you probably have enough people that are sort of like-minded that employers wouldn't do that anymore.

0:51:52 Thomas: Okay. True. Yeah, true. But I mean, theoretically, those voters could be not the same people as the people who are employing people. And it could be a vast majority of employers are like, nah, never going to allow this.

0:52:20 Andrew: Yeah, The reason that um, the question gets asked is because a number of employers, uh, drug test their employees, right? And not even in area, right? Like, so there are areas where you might not be surprised to find out that an employer is testing their employees, really, you know, airlines, lines, for example, where, you know, you might be called upon at a moment's notice, know, we would want to know, OK, well, are you under, you know, the effect of of of certain kinds of substances? But in in about the 1990s, you know, this was kind of a post 80s, you know.

Just say no. Like a lot, lot, the notion of drug testing in wider society really became you know, kind of a key part of of some political movements. And so, you know, you have employers who run warehouses who nevertheless, you know, drug test their employees. And and it's hard to think of a justification other than than, you know, kind of freaking out as to why, you know, you would care. Like, right, if if your job is to stock the shelves all day, uh, as long as you're good at it, like, you know, why should we care what you do at the end of your shelf stocking day?

0:53:36 Andrew: Um, uh, but nevertheless, um, that we had a massive change in social behavior where you, there was kind of the freak out of, oh, my gosh, if if I've hired a drug user, you know, that's a potential danger to my workplace or what have you. You know, I think the pendulum is starting to shift the other way.

0:53:52 Thomas: All right. Well, thank you for for the question, Hacker Group Anonymous, and don't hack us. And yeah, thanks for that answer, Andrew. Know what, Andrew? It is time to thank our all-time greats, our wonderful, amazing Hall of Fame patrons over at patreon.com/law. Can't tell you how much we appreciate it. Hope you've enjoyed all of the wonderful bonus content we've been giving you.

0:53:59 Andrew: Yeah.

0:54:17 Andrew: Thank you to Roger Metcalf, Dan Irizarry, Eli Bosnick, Dave Nichols of Positively Doubtful Podcast, Steve Sigmund, Jim Grove, Desecrator Patrick Fussell, Amanda Lipnack, La Bibliotecatrice, Heather Loveridge, Geeker 41, Sean Pity, Ian and Ally, Matthew Vernon, thank you to Violet Page, Hall, to our good friend Heath Enwright, to Jeffrey Maynor, the Wayward Willis, to Detective Matthieu Max, and always on the case, Matthiew Hillier, and Xena. And why don't you take it from there, Thomas? All

0:54:54 Thomas: My pleasure. Thank you, Dave, Lovely Danny Baker, at Combat Nonsense, the Netsec Heathen, Charone Frankel, Squick Thinger, John Bodley, Esquire, one of my favorites, Hunter Ash, Kaylee Riser, Jeff S. Thank you, Sakashite Fukasumi, Philip Stromberg, Michael Shaffer, Michaela, Rob V, Frederick Elstromer, Sammy, Michael, Conrad Michaels, Zabby, and the Inciting Incident Podcast, still our top patron. Thank you so much. You guys are truly the best.

0:55:28 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:55:34 Thomas: All right, it's that time, Andrew. You know, I'm a little dejected. I'm not feeling amazing. I got the first question wrong that I've gotten in a long time, but, uh, you know, gotta gotta dust myself off, pick myself up by my legal bootstraps here, and, uh, see how, see if I can answer, get seven out of ten, or will I go six out of ten? Yeah.

0:55:57 Andrew: Right, yeah, this is this is a critical question, so pay attention.

0:56:01 Thomas: I feel like they've all been pretty critical. There's like one that I'm like, this is not critical, I don't care. No, I think pretty well. All right. Question 10.

0:56:08 Andrew: All Right, a college student files a criminal case against his former roommate, claiming that the former roommate snuck in and removed his state-of-the-art home theater equipment from his house. Okay. The college student took the approved prosecution papers and filed them with a magistrate court. An ongoing police investigation determined, however, that the college student was a vengeful person, not averse to creating stories, and that he and the former roommate had been arguing over a number of issues. They also determined that he never had any quality sound or video equipment. The police decide to drop the prosecution. The case is dismissed at the preliminary hearing. When the former roommate filed a civil case against the complainant for for malicious prosecution, will the evidence of defendant's reputation for dishonesty be admissible? Okay.

0:56:21 Thomas: Hmm Okay, so this is the accused roommate is going to file a civil lawsuit back against the accuser roommate. Okay. Which

0:57:07 Andrew: Right, right. So accused roommate files A civil case against the first guy for malicious persecution. And the question is, at that civil trial, will be evidence of the first guy's reputation For Dishonesty Right Yep Be Admissible Okay, you ready? All This is my favorite new question because we have four answers and they are all yes.

0:57:23 Thomas: Was uncovered in the investigation. Okay, will that be admissible? Yep.

0:57:38 Thomas: Yes.

0:57:38 Andrew: Yes. So

0:57:38 Thomas: Okay? I was thinking that. Yeah. Oh, man. Okay! This is different.

0:57:42 Andrew: A Yeah.

0:57:44 Thomas: This is, is different. All right, see where we go. All

0:57:45 Andrew: That The bar, the bar throws you curveballs from time to time. A, because dishonesty at any time in the past is always relevant to a malicious prosecution complaint. B, yes, because even though character evidence is too collateral to be admitted for circumstantial evidence, it is admissible if it is directly at issue in the case. C, yes, because reputation evidence, like most, just like most character evidence, is virtually always admissible. Or D, yes, because while, while most character's evidence is not admissible, some is, and reputation evidence is always admissible.

0:57:47 Thomas: Right, that Is interesting. I think, okay, read me C one more time. Now I got burned by C in the last question. But read me see one more time. I know, I know you know what I don't care.

0:58:29 Andrew: Right. This is This is exactly like going up to the roulette table, that's, that's hit black eight times in a row. Yeah, All

0:58:43 Thomas: I'm not gonna play that game. I'll answer C a hundred times in a row if I think it's the best answer. Gotta be logical. Gosh.

0:58:44 Andrew: Right, all right, C is yes, because reputation evidence, just like most character evidence, is virtually always admissible.

0:58:57 Thomas: This is really hard. I thought it was going to be easier, but maybe I've tricked myself into thinking they're all plausible.

0:59:08 Thomas: I'm going to go with answer A, which was, I don't even remember. No, I'm just kidding. What was that one again? Get dishonest, oh, it's always going to be relevant to a, uh, all right, I'm gonna go with answer A. I don't have a lot of confidence in this one. I, I think it could be, I, my initial thinking was C, but then I, I don't know, I kind of waffled on that, uh, and then it seemed less plausible, and then I, man, I just don't know. I, I, I'm going to go with A, and I'm, I'm going to hope it's the right answer. We'll see.

0:59:19 Andrew: Malicious prosecution complaint.

0:59:42 Andrew: And as always, uh, we encourage you to play along with Thomas, who is six for nine. Uh, the way to play along is either via Facebook or Twitter on the post or tweet that announces and releases this show, quote that announcement and include within your tweet, or within the share on your Facebook wall, your explanation, your answer and your explanation, and we will pick a winner every week. Uh, lot of people are telling us they're really enjoying playing along with us, uh, just like listener Noah L, and and a whole bunch of other folks. So, um, continue, uh, play along, have fun, and we will find out on Tuesday if you got it right.

1:00:22 Thomas: Right. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks to everyone who plays along with that. And with that said, Andrew, that's it for today's show. I want to thank everyone for listening. I want thank our fine patrons over at patreon.com/law. I want think Andrew for hopefully cheating and making sure that answer A was the right answer, even though it probably was. No, not really. Andrew would never do that. He would take more pleasure out of me failing. No. Thanks, everyone, for listening, and we will see you next time. You next week on opening arguments

1:00:58 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments with Andrew and Thomas. If you love the show and want to support future episodes, please visit our Patreon page at patreon.com/law. If you can't support us financially, it'd be a big help if you could leave us a five star review on iTunes, Stitcher, or whatever podcast delivery vehicle you use. And be sure to tell all your friends about us. For questions, suggestions, and complaints, email us at openarguments@gmail.com. The show notes and links are on our website at www.openargs.com. Be sure to like our page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. Until next time. This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC. All rights reserved.