OA410: NY AG Files to Dissolve the NRA!

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 410. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How are you doing, sir?

0:01:24 Andrew: I am fantastic, Thomas. How are you?

0:01:26 Thomas: Doing well. Normally, I just think you're just so bright and shiny and optimistic, but today feels like maybe there's a little bit of good news, sort of.

0:01:37 Andrew: Yeah, so last night, as if to us that, recording you the shows on Thursdays are, you know, that that's a bad idea. The New York State Attorney General, Letitia James, put out a call to press that said there was going to be a major announcement at 1130 a.m. today. A lot of observers, myself included, thought that this might relate to the Vance filing, right, Cyrus Vance's filing against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. It does not. As it turns out, The state of New York is seeking to dissolve the National Rifle Association.

0:02:23 Andrew: This is a 164 page complaint that came out about three hours ago, about two, two and a half hours ago.

0:02:22 Thomas: Wow, so you've read it only twice

0:02:30 Andrew: I have I have read the entire thing. It is amazing. And and we're going to break that down for you so that, you know, everything.

0:02:30 Thomas: Then, probably.

0:02:41 Thomas: Can't wait for the breakdown, what, as fast as could possibly be, and it's something that I'm sure we're all gonna have questions on. I was, I saw the headline, I was like, what can they do, that, how does that work, what in the world. So I'm excited. Also, I want to note that, uh, apologies, I went on a very brief vacation, but in doing so I forgot to post the uh Andrew on SIO over to the OA bonus feed, which I said I would. I have now corrected that, so that's all up there. If you were looking for that, that is now on the Opening Arguments Patreon feed, or, you know, hop on over to Serious Inquiries Only, either way, to...

0:02:41 Andrew: Yeah.

0:03:15 Andrew: This was a lot of fun. We, we talked about what the real worries are, uh, between now and the election and the expiration of Donald Trump's term, hopefully, in uh January of of 2021, 2021. And um, you, some ways I talked you off the ledge, some ways I joined you on the ledge. It's, I thought it was, I thought was a good discussion. You, yeah.

0:03:35 Thomas: Right. And see, you have an announcement here as well before we get going.

0:03:38 Andrew: This is really, really important. Um, if you have your census forms, complete them, send them in. It's really, really critical. We understand that the other side strategy is to undercount voters like the people who listen to the show. So don't, don't help them in that. And I'm going to include, making this kind of relevant, a statement issued by four former U.S. Census Bureau directors. It's a little bit over a page. And it is raising the alarm. It says, look, have previously engaged in the activities necessary to conduct a countrywide census, and it will not surprise you to learn that their assessment is that the Trump administration, which is incompetent at everything, is also incompetent at managing the census, whether that is by design or by happenstance, you know, it's probably both.

And this letter says, for example, the Census Bureau will be faced with the enormous burden of determining whether the 2020 census results are substandard. We urge Congress to share that burden, task a suitable independent institution, any apolitical and trusted institution of its choosing, to produce predetermined quality metrics that can assess if the final 2020 numbers match other historical and reasonable estimates of the population the Census Bureau produces. If not, recommend what steps the country should take. The letter also calls upon the administration to continue to extend the deadlines for collecting data.

0:05:32 Andrew: And the reason for that is that the start of the phase two of the census. Right. So phase one of the censuses, you distribute all the documents and people voluntarily send them in. Phase two is what you do from with respect to households that don't respond to phase one. Right, because the document gets lost or, you know, you're like me, you stick it on your desk and, you You know, you're planning on getting to it, but you never get to it.

0:06:00 Thomas: Thought they just, we all just step outside and raise our hands and then they count us all. I... Didn't, okay.

0:06:05 Andrew: That's like hands across America. That's right.

0:06:06 Thomas: Yeah. I've misunderstood this whole thing.

0:06:09 Andrew: Yeah. No. So there's a follow up. Right. And that follow up was scheduled to take place May 15th through July 31st of 2020. And you may recognize those dates as being in the past. And it has not begun.

0:06:26 Thomas: You...

0:06:27 Andrew: Accommodate that delay, the Census Bureau determined that a four month extension of the legally mandated deadlines was necessary. So now that is going to take place August 11 through October 30th of 2020. So look, we're already four months behind and we haven't started, you know, much of the hard work. So this is going to be a mess. And the other side wants it to be amiss. They want the data to be unreliable. Do your part to help out.

0:07:01 Thomas: Let's talk, talk about New York trying to dissolve the NRA, finally.

0:07:06 Andrew: Yeah, uh, finally.

0:07:09 Thomas: It's... Been minutes, I can't even take it.

0:07:13 Andrew: Um, so... So, uh, there's a lot that I want to talk about. We're going to read this 164 page complaint the OA way, right, uh, starting with the caption and then kind of working backwards. Uh, we're gonna, we're to do it a little teeny tiny bit out of order because I want to talk in general. And I want to talk about the specific parties that are in the caption. But again, same OA reading applies. What you need to know, this is the TLDR if you like Opening Arguments, but you don't like listening to long segments. I can't...

0:07:48 Thomas: Yeah.

0:07:48 Andrew: Imagine there are too many of you viewers, you know, listeners like that. But here here's the top line bullet points. First, this is an incredibly detailed complaint about mismanagement and fraud at the NRA. And it is not political in any way whatsoever. Right. They're literally nothing in this hundred and sixty four page complaint is has to do with the substance of what the NRA does. Right.

0:07:49 Thomas: Who... Is... That...

0:08:20 Thomas: Yeah.

0:08:20 Andrew: So that's the first thing that's going to get misrepresented by your Uncle Frank's. And yeah,

0:08:26 Thomas: My parents and other people's uncles, or whoever, is going to be like, oh, it's just a political hit job, obviously, Obama... He... Did it.

0:08:31 Andrew: Yeah, yep. Yep. There is there is nothing in here that has to do with the NRA's with with valid liberal arguments against the NRA. Right. We don't have to articulate them here. This is entirely about corporate mismanagement. And the the way to think about it, right, the the analogy, I'm not sure who this insults more, is but it is essentially that Wayne LaPierre, whose position is executive vice president, but you know, he's the head of the NRA. He's the guy you recognize. He goes on Fox News all the time. You know, Wayne LaPierre that he is essentially the David Miscavige of the Right.

0:09:11 Thomas: Jeez.

0:09:12 Andrew: That he's that been in Their organization since 1978, and that he has enacted changes, some of them to the operations and some of them to handpicking certain toadies that we are going to talk about, who are named in this complaint, with a goal towards keeping, keeping Wayne LaPierre in power, and as a secondary goal, letting him loot a nonprofit organization for his personal advantage. Okay. So that's what this is about. And if you're asking, does New York have the power to do that? Absolutely. They have the, the power to do that, right? A charitable organization, essentially, you have requirements on both sides, right, so a charitable organization is required to adopt rules, policies, and procedures regarding conflicts of interest, right.

0:09:14 Thomas: Uh...

0:10:10 Andrew: They have to file reports, they have to do stuff to show, hey look, we're really a charity and we're complying with the law and we are administering our funds in in accordance with how you expect a charitable organization to administer its funds. And on the flip side, the officers and directors of a charity have a fiduciary duty to that organization, right. So if I am, so let me give you a classic example of a thing you can't do. I...

0:10:38 Thomas: Steal from... A children's hospital, or whatever. The Trump charity... Did.

0:10:39 Andrew: Yeah. Exactly. Right. Like I... Yeah, uh, I started a an organization that says, uh, this is for children's health. We file as a 501c3 nonprofit. That's a federal filing with the IRS. And we register as a nonprofit corporation with the state of New York. It turns out, then I hire myself as executive director of that charity. Again, so far, so good, we're all fine. Then, as it turns out, I pay myself a salary as executive director that is equal to 100 percent of the net revenues generated by the charity in any given year. That would really clearly be fraudulent. Right. Like I'm just using it. I'm using the charity as...

0:10:42 Thomas: Yeah.

0:11:28 Andrew: A pass through entity to get people to make tax deductible contributions to pay my salary. That's a fraud. Right.

0:11:34 Thomas: And... Then you, you... Do thoughts and prayers for kids, and then you say, that's... how yeah Especially.

0:11:36 Andrew: Right. Exactly. Yeah, That's it. That's what I do. This is obviously way more complicated than that. But but if you understand that basic principle, right, that the charity has an obligation as an institution to set up rules to stop people from misusing its funds and the people who run the charity have an obligation not to misuse the funds. And the and the allegations in this hundred and sixty four page complaint are that that system broke down from the inside at the instigation of Wayne LaPierre. And so now we start at the caption. In addition to the National Rifle Association and Wayne LaPierre, it names three people that you probably have not heard of. I could not have named these folks.

0:12:26 Andrew: They are Woody Phillips, the former treasurer and chief financial officer. Joshua Powell, the who was Wayne LaPierre's chief of staff and the executive vice president in charge of operations. And John Frazier, the former general counsel of the National Rifle Association. And and here I'm going to read paragraph four from the complaint directly. Again, I do this to say what New York thinks it can prove. Right. Like a complaint right now. This is just a complaint. You have to substantiate these facts. But I will tell you, as a lawyer, when you can't substantiated facts, you tend not to write out detailed complaints like this. Right.

0:13:12 Thomas: With something as high profile as this, like... I'm sure they're going to, uh... Dot the T's and cross the I's. As...

0:13:14 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Love. The NRA is going to hire the best lawyers money can buy unless they're incredibly stupid. We'll we'll find out. So, yeah, like you, you have to have all of your ducks crossed and dotted at this point. Here's Right. The general allegation about the three amigos. Goes in addition to Wayne LaPierre. Phillips, Powell, and Frazier. LaPierre hired and retained each of them despite their lack of skills or experience for their respective roles and responsibilities. Despite their lack of experience, LaPierre entrusted them with substantial authority for managing and administering the NRA's charitable assets and bearing responsibility for the NRA's legal compliance. In accordance with the bylaws, each of of them was under LaPierre's authority and within the scope of his responsibility.

0:14:06 Andrew: Like LaPierre, each of them regularly ignored, overrode, or otherwise violated the bylaws and internal policies and procedures they were charged with enforcing. As a result of these repeated violations, charitable assets were diverted to benefit NRA insiders and favored vendors. So that's the idea. LaPierre recruits the three amigos to help him skirt NRA laws and divert money to himself and his family and favored individuals. There are some specific allegations. So, for example, paragraph six on Powell says that Powell was given pay increases that nearly tripled his salary in less than three years, despite three complaints of abusive behavior, evidence of illegal conduct and inappropriate spending.

0:14:57 Andrew: Within a year after LaPierre designated Powell to lead the NRA's compliance program, he was fired for falsifying his travel expenses. So, like, those are facts, right? Like, that's not, you can't contest that. This guy came in, tripled his salary within under three years, was designated to lead the NRA's compliance program, and was falsifying his travel expenses while overseeing the program under which he was falsified expenses. Expenses.

0:15:30 Thomas: Somebody who's firmly anti-gun and anti-NRA, I don't know who to root for here. Part of me is like, yeah, you, yeah, take, take them for all they're worth.

0:15:39 Andrew: Then you'll really love LaPierre. This is paragraph seven. Again, these are direct quotes. This is not my spin meistering, right?

0:15:39 Thomas: Yeah.

0:15:48 Thomas: So...

0:15:49 Andrew: LaPierre's choice as general counsel, Frazier, had only a brief 18-month tenure in private practice and was unprepared to manage the legal and regulatory affairs of the NRA. I, I, I want you to to meditate on that for a minute. Um, the idea that you would be in private practice for a year and a half and be put in charge of compliance for the National Rifle Association, with 200 million dollars in assets under management, is prima facie evidence of of of criminal mismanagement. Right. Like it, it, no sane person would take somebody with a year and a half worth of legal experience and be like, yeah, sure, you can run this huge multinational charity, why not? Uh, it then adds, uh, Fraser also serves as the corporation's secretary, but has little apparent knowledge of the requirements...

0:16:47 Andrew: Of New York law governing not-for-profit corporations. For example, Frazier repeatedly failed to ensure that the NRA's many related party transactions with insiders were being reviewed or properly considered in accordance with New York law. He also failed to maintain an enforced whistleblower and conflict of interest policies that met the requirements of applicable law. OK, so those are the parties. Now we read our complaint backwards. So we start at the the prayer for relief. Right. What does New York want out of this? This begins on page 161. And basically, it's two and a half pages long. It contains multiple subparts. But essentially, what they want is for the NRA to be dissolved, the alternative for all of the directors that are still there, LaPierre and Frazier, to be removed from their positions.

For all of the individual defendants to be barred as serving as officers, directors, or trustees of any nonprofit or charitable organization in New York, that all of the inside transactions, and we're going to talk about these, this is nine figures worth of improper transactions, so hundreds of millions of dollars that they be voided, that the defendants have to disgorge their profits, turn it back over. That the NRA be enjoined, quote, from soliciting or collecting funds on behalf of any charitable organization operating in this state, end of quote, directing the NRA to provide an accounting for all of its conduct Related to all the matters discussed in the complaint. So that's pretty comprehensive. It...

0:18:33 Thomas: Wayne LaPierre, undercover, super super secret Antifa sleeper agent, is that...

0:18:39 Thomas: Are we prepared to come out, I mean...

0:18:42 Andrew: I... It, it, I, yeah.

0:18:44 Thomas: The Antifa got that old man to fall, uh, way... Too... Hard.

0:18:48 Andrew: I... I... It...

0:18:48 Thomas: Who knows what they're capable of, yeah.

0:18:49 Andrew: It will be interesting, I mean, you know, you you're cracking a joke, it will be interesting to see if the White House and Fox News uh close ranks around this guy. I mean, that's that's the obvious bet, right, is that uh they're gonna close ranks, this is a witch hunt, this is all political, blah, blah, blah. Blah. It will be very interesting if they go the other way, which is hang him out to dry. Right. If all of a sudden you see Wayne LaPierre, lifeline, lifelong Democrat, you know, here he is on a private jet with Jeffrey Epstein, you know, show up on on the next couple of Fox News reports. That is no more preposterous than calling Robert Mueller and his gang of 13 angry Democrats. When you had a room full of people, the most liberal of whom were like, yeah, I voted for Mitt Romney. I volunteered for his campaign. Yeah. Anyway, so that's what New York wants. Then, as we continue to work backwards, there are 18 specific causes of action alleged in this

0:19:15 Thomas: Lifelong Democrat Yeah

0:19:57 Andrew: Complaint.

0:19:58 Thomas: Well On side note, sorry, on what you just said I, I Uh We'll see what happens with Trump, or if it even matters, but you know, given given how it's lining up, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump just totally went to bat for him. I mean, the enemy is the Southern District of New York, somebody that Trump has already had problems with. He's never met a lying, you know, huckster that he didn't also want to say was amazing so that maybe it excuses what he does. The You Trump Foundation has also run afoul of the same, isn't it the same jurisdiction? So, yeah, lots of reasons why he might want to go ahead and go to bat für this guy, but who knows?

0:19:59 Andrew: Sure, sure, sure. Yeah, Yeah.

0:20:32 Andrew: So two, two quick points with respect to that. First, I, I want to clarify. So this is not the Southern district of New York, right? Which is federal. Yep. No, no, no. This is the New York state attorney general's office, but Trump is under investigation by that same office.

0:20:38 Thomas: Oh, sorry. Apologies. Right, right, right. Mm-hmm.

0:20:47 Andrew: Right. And, uh, his personal charity, uh has, uh was forcibly dissolved by this office.

0:20:56 Thomas: Gotcha.

0:20:56 Andrew: So, um, So, yes, all of that. The only reason I make the clarification is just on the on the jurisdictional issue. And then and second, again, this sort of goes back to John Bolton's book. Bolton's primary thesis is that Trump governs by, you personal strong arm tactics. So I think we will know very, very soon. Sadly, not not in time for this record, but we will know whether LaPierre was somebody who knuckled under to Trump or whether he's somebody that Trump has, you know, is nursing a grudge against.

0:21:02 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, That's what I was going to say. The only determining factor has nothing to do with the ethics of LaPierre or what he did or any of those facts. All it has to do it with is, will LaPierre go up there and worship Trump and say a bunch of nice things about him or not? That's the only difference, in people he decides are closet liberals, you know, like John Bolton and other, you Know, yeah, like the only determination. The factor is whether or not they sit there and worship him. And I bet you, if this Antifa super soldier Wayne LaPierre knows what's good for him, he should kiss up to Trump because he'll get backed up by Trump, I'm sure. Right.

0:21:46 Andrew: Yep, yep.

0:22:11 Andrew: So I agree with that 100%. So now let's talk about the counts. I'm going to, not going to go through these one by one because that's 18 of them and that would take forever, but they really fall into four buckets, right? The first bucket are counts one and two, and those are the ones that are going to get the most headlines. Those are the allegations to dissolve the National Rifle Association for failing to abide by certain statutory requirements. And again, I want to be perfectly clear here. This is, while not a common remedy, because most people who run charities do not abuse those charities, this is a commonplace requirement.

0:22:57 Andrew: And this is an ordinary enforcement enforcement mechanism that says, hey, when you register as a charity in the state of New York, you have to follow certain laws, right? Among those laws are, count one is kind of the general count, right, it alleges that the NRA acted ultra virus in permitting its assets to be misused, right, failing to have the proper kind of mechanisms in place for that. And you would say, all right, well, how strong is this case?

Um, 25 pages of the complaint, this is pages 106 to 130, detail how LaPierre, uh, retaliated against dissidents on the board, dismantled institutional checks, failed to establish an audit committee, committee for certain transactions, like, it's bad, um, and, and, and I want to say, right, I have served on the Board of Directors of, of multiple charities during my adult life, right? I serve on some right now, right. And on face, this is the kind of thing that most real charities take very, very seriously. And let me just give you a really straightforward example. Wayne LaPierre has been in charge of the NRA for, for almost 30 years. Look at your favorite, yeah, since the early 1990s. He's been in leadership since 1978. It is best practice within a charity, right, to rotate out the board.

0:24:30 Andrew: Like, I mean, most charities will have term limits for board members, right? I've rotated on and on. You know, You I spent seven or eight years on the board of the Public Justice Center until my terms expired. Right. I love the PJC. I've given them shout outs on the show. I still support them. I love what they do. But, you know, it was time to get somebody else on theboard there. Right. Like And if you look at the kinds of charities that legitimate charities, one of the things you will see is a constant is that those charities are about the cause and not about an individual. Right.

0:25:07 Thomas: Right.

0:25:08 Andrew: You will see an influx of new membership and even new leadership. So, you know, look, that's not to say that it's improper for a charity, particularly for a political charity, to to have the same leadership structure for three decades. But it does kind of raise a red flag. You look at it. And then so you look to see, are there institutional checks? So that's what count one is about. Then count two, more specific, says that the corporation permitted its officers to loot or waste corporate assets. Sets. Those terms, looted or wasted, are in the law, right? So again, this is not my gloss.

0:25:53 Andrew: And this is a common theme throughout the complaint, but also specifically outlined on pages 93 to 105. And those allegations are claims that the NRA did not have appropriate procedures in place to determine reasonable compensation, did not disclose insider transactions to members of the board, didnot disclose, we're about to talk about, the staggeringly high levels of personal benefits conveyed to the board of directors. So all of those are sort of the first two causes of action. They run against the NRA. And it basically says, hey, if you have an organization and the organization isn't doing the kinds of things that an organization is required to do by state law, then the attorney general can petition to dissolve that corporate organization.

0:26:51 Andrew: Right. Again, this is not a controversial position. If I had a corporation and the corporation didn't have, you know, just a for-profit corporation that could do anything, right, closely held. So, you you know, and I'm the sole stockholder, right? But nevertheless, if I don't maintain the books of that corporation, if I don't have regular quarterly meetings, if the corporation doesn't have its own bank account, then state attorney general could petition to dissolve my corporation, right? Like, corporation has to follow the rules, and there are almost 50 pages of allegations in this complaint that the NRA did not. So that's the first bucket counts one and two.

0:27:34 Thomas: So, well, I am curious, obviously, Wayne LaPierre and his cronies have done some real mismanagement here, to put it lightly. But what about just should New York have the right to tell them to completely, you know, to completely get rid of the NRA or should it just be saying you have to get rid OF this leadership and then, you know, change, change out the leadership and then you can still be the NRA, which is in fairness, again, I don't like the NRE, but if this was a decades old liberal institution that had some really corrupt people running it. And by the way, the NRI is way older than that, let's say it's a, you know uh, it's a decades to, if not a century old liberal institution that had somebody who was really corrupt and stole from it.

0:28:21 Thomas: Would we be pissed if it was like, "Oh, why are you making us get rid of the entire thing? Shouldn't you just be locking the people at the top up or something?" Yeah.

0:28:30 Andrew: Insert Planned Parenthood, for example. Right. Yeah. So let me speak to that. That's it's an excellent question. And it's why I've broken it down this way. So first, you corrected yourself, the, but NRA is older than than decades old. It is, it is more than a century old. However, the institutional takeover at the NRA that converted it from a gun safety organization to a political right-wing lobbying machine occurred in the 1970s. So it occurred roughly contemporaneously with when Wayne LaPierre was first brought into leadership at the NRA. So not at the top, but within the leadership structure. To the larger point, I totally agree with you, and it's why I've tried to articulate the difference between insiders defrauding a good organization versus the organization being corrupted from the inside such, such that it is not salvageable. Because, look, good charities sometimes have a problem with members in leadership that engage in self-dealing, that take private charter flights and include their family on vacations and junkets and trips of personal interest and submit inflated expense reports and all of that.

0:28:32 Thomas: Hmm. Right. Yeah.

0:29:57 Andrew: And every charity that I've been on, right, has policies and procedures in place to either deter that from happening and to take action when there's evidence that that has happened, right? So without speaking to particular charities, to me, that's the real difference. When you look at this, do you see an institution with internal checks and controls that was designed to stop LaPierre from doing what he was doing? Or do you see one without those controls that was complicit, that has been hijacked and taken over such that, you know, corporations may be people, my friend, but if there are no procedures in place to protect against abuse, then the only real remedy you have is dissolution.

0:30:56 Andrew: Dissolution, uh, that is going to be, I've taken a quick look at the, at the New York case law in terms of the remedy that is, that is, uh, awarded. It's going to be fact specific, right? Like, we can't predict right now just from looking at the complaint, right? Like, if everything in the complaint is true and is proven, uh, you know, at, at trial to the satisfaction of the jury, then yes, they will, they will get the dissolution of the NRA. You know, you have to suspect that the NRA is going to have its version of events. Right.

0:31:29 Thomas: But also, is that they, so a state can dissolve, uh,

0:31:34 Andrew: Yeah. Because all because there's no such thing as solely a federal corporation. Right, yeah.

0:31:35 Thomas: Right. But I don't, are they, they were, are they based in New York? I I

0:31:46 Andrew: Yeah, they are. They are incorporated as a nonprofit under New York law for over a century. So, they

0:31:46 Thomas: Oh. Okay, I, sorry, when I was looking it up, it said Fairfax County, Virginia, or something, so I didn't know, know, oh.

0:31:58 Andrew: They're their their principal place of business was moved to Fairfax, Virginia, which is actually important for purposes of the complaint. But, yeah. A corporation can be incorporated in one jurisdiction and have its principal placeof business in another. Other. So that's the case with the NRA. Right. And Fairfax, Virginia, is a D.C. suburb. So they also have quite famously an office in downtown Washington, D.C. I believe it's on 17th Street. It is. I used to walk past it and it is the only building in all of Washington, D.C. with half a constitutional amendment printed on the outside.

0:32:07 Thomas: Right. Yeah. That's a famous joke, and

0:32:40 Andrew: Yeah, I love it. But not a a joke 100 true

0:32:41 Thomas: Uh, Yeah. Yeah. True. Um. Opening Arguments is brought to you by BetterHelp. Is there something interfering with your happiness or preventing you from achieving your goals? I know for me, that's me. Yes, entirely my own brain does that. Well, BetterHelp will assess your needs and match you with your own licensed professional therapist. You can start communicating in under 48 hours. It's not a crisis line. It is not self-help. It It is professional counseling done securely online. There's a broad range of expertise available, which may not be locally available in many areas. The service is available for clients worldwide. You can log into your account anytime and send a message to your counselor. You'll get timely and thoughtful responses. Plus, you can schedule weekly video or phone sessions so you won't ever have to sit in an uncomfortable waiting room as with traditional therapy.

0:32:44 Andrew: Yeah

0:33:38 Thomas: Better Help is committed to facilitating great therapeutic matches so they make it easy and free to change counselors if needed. It's more affordable than traditional offline counseling and financial aid is available. Better Help wants you to start living a happier life today. Visit their website and read their testimonials that are posted daily. Here, I'll read one that was just posted today. It says, Amanda was a good listener who responded with solid suggestions to assist me with my circumstances. Lots more like that on BetterHelp.com slash reviews and visit BetterHelp dot com slash O-A that's Better H-E-L-P, BetterHelp, and join the over one million people taking charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional.

0:34:25 Thomas: In fact, so many people have been using BetterHelp that they are recruiting additional counselors in all 50 states. The special offer for Opening Arguments listeners is to get 10% off your first month at BetterHelp.com slash OA. That's BetterHelp dot com slash OA for 10% Off your first Month. Um. I guess last question along these lines, and I'll let you get back to the, the analysis here, but will anything, like, let's say this goes swimmingly for New York and they're dissolved and all that, do they just start up in another state with the same name, do the same things, or, or will something stop that?

0:34:46 Andrew: Yeah yeah so

0:35:03 Thomas: Why?

0:35:02 Andrew: So yes like so yes and no right there is nothing to stop uh leadership there's nothing to Stop Wayne LaPierre from starting the American Rifle Association in you know as a Delaware non-profit tomorrow he

0:35:18 Thomas: Would, would he even have to do a different name?

0:35:20 Andrew: Could he could do the same name um There might be.

0:35:22 Thomas: Okay, just checking. I'm very curious of the extent of New York's power to stop something in the entire United States.

0:35:24 Andrew: No, no. It it these are these are awesome questions. Right. The the reason to do a different name is actually if he infringes upon the NRA's registered trademarks, that would be evidence against him in the New York action. Right? Right. And so.

0:35:44 Thomas: Okay, so National Schmeifel Association. I like that better.

0:35:46 Andrew: Right. Yeah. Yeah, OK. Yeah. Something that you could argue is not misleadingly similar to the NRA's existing trademarks, which Wayne LaPierre and and and Frazier, you know, I mean, Frazier was the guy in charge of securing legal protection for those trademarks. Right. So, you Know, it would be it would Be real bad to then pretend that we had no idea. Yeah. There's another entity called the National Rifle Association. How weird. Yeah.

0:36:15 Thomas: Yeah, first I've heard of it.

0:36:16 Andrew: Right. So, so that, so that would be one disincentive. Right, that that the NRA owns two things right now. So, so forming the National Schmeifel Association is a thing you could do, but you'll miss out on two things. Right? Right. The first is the 200 plus million dollars of assets under management that the NRA has right now. Right. And they can't just transfer that out. Right, right. That would be a fraudulent transaction to, you know, defund the NRA and transfer it into another organization. And again, would be prima facie evidence of misconduct in the New York case. So, OK, all right. You forego that, uh, but you also forego, um, what we call, uh, in in in business law, corporate goodwill, right, and and and by goodwill, um, I I don't, it doesn't, it doesn't mean goodwill. Yeah.

0:37:14 Thomas: Yeah. I remember this from business school. All

0:37:16 Andrew: Yeah. It means name recognition, right? People know, right, now you know they have the little stickers on their car. Right. Like for good or for bad. Right. People on the on both sides of the political spectrum know what the NRA is and direct their contributions accordingly. Starting a brand new organization, you have that opportunity cost to get over. Right? Right. Like, because there's nothing to stop you and I from starting an organization that is like the National Pro Gun Lobby Organization. Right. We could do that. And then, you know, just state in our corporate bylaws, like, what we want to do is lobby Congress on behalf of sensible gun control legislation that protects the

0:38:03 Thomas: Right. I'll start typing up some bogus travel expense reports. All Alright, who's with me? Let's do it.

0:38:04 Andrew: Right. Right. Right. So, look, like, we can't, we can't defraud our membership and say, you know, that we are engaged in, you know, one type of political advocacy when we're doing the opposite. But but look, like, you know, if you could certainly pick a name that it's hard to figure out what side you're on from the name. Right? Like, like, that's why we have the American Chemistry Council. Right. You know, and and and every industry that has a PR reputational problem has a trade organization out front that has a benign sounding name on it. So so those are the two kind of practical impediments to starting up the American Schmeifel Association or, you know, whatever.

So, tie all that all back together again, if these facts were alleged against Planned Parenthood, you would say, all right, I hate to see the amount of money that is presently under management for Planned Planned Parenthood and will be used, you know, to support liberal causes in the 2020 presidential and federal elections. I hate to see that seized by a state. But, like, you know, if it's, if it were true, and by the way, like, we're doing this as a straw man, like, there is zero evidence that that this is true for Planned Parenthood, right, like we're saying worst case on the other side and like if these facts were true against the upper management of Planned Parenthood, you would say, yeah, man, like, looks like Planned Parenthhood is is a corrupt organization where the people involved have been looting and, uh, and we got to do something. You can't just, you can't just say let's let them continue to loot because we like the political side they're on. Um,

0:38:34 Thomas: Yeah.

0:39:50 Andrew: Right.

0:39:49 Thomas: Geez, no one grabbed that out of context statement by Andrew. You're going to show up on Hannity tonight, probably.

0:39:52 Andrew: Right. Yeah, right. Yeah. It'll be my first appearance on cable news. Yeah admits conspiracy by Planned Parenthood to defraud. Yeah that's all hypothetical. There is no such evidence. But if there were evidence like this. Yeah like yeah

0:39:58 Thomas: This just in, Raging Liberal admits that, yeah.

0:40:10 Thomas: You'd have to just be like, alright, well, you blew it. Let's, we'll go to a new organization with our dollars, I guess.

0:40:13 Andrew: That that sucks. I am I am donating money to Planned Parenthood when we get off this this call. I mean I'm 100 percent serious about this. Yeah, because they are a good organization that cares about reproductive health. Yeah, don't know if I have in 2020. So time for me to do that. Anyway, let's get back. Let's get back to the counts. So the first bucket are efforts to dissolve the NRA. The next bucket are claims against the individuals for breach of fiduciary duty. And that's the other half of the equation, right? So in addition to the NRA has to put policies and procedures in place, when you are the director of a charity, you have a duty of good faith to spend that charity's money in ways that advance the interest of the charity, and not in ways than advance your personal interests. What do we mean by advancing your personal interests? Well, fortunately, the attorney general of New York has 18 pages detailing what this means.

0:40:22 Thomas: Yeah, just to make sure. I donate every year.

0:41:19 Andrew: These are pages 35 to 52. Let's talk about this. So over the five-year period, 2013 to 2017, this is paragraph 190. How much in reimbursable expenses do you think uh, Wayne LaPierre has filed. Yeah. Expenses incurred in running the charity. Um,

0:41:42 Thomas: Oh, geez. Well, Let's see, probably, probably, you know, you hit McDonald's on the way to work, maybe, or so. That's that's seven or eight dollars there. Uh, you do that, how many years are we talking? Five, years. Let's do some quick math.

0:41:50 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Five years. So let's say he eats McDonald's as frequently as you do, Right. Twice, twice, twice a day, every day.

0:42:01 Thomas: You know, I don't eat McDonald's. I, I aspire to eat Mckdonalds, but I can't. I just, I miss it because, So we'll say Taco Bell. No, In-N-Out. In-N-Out is really actually the fast food that I eat. So then it gets a bunch of In-And-Out, you know, got to drive to the airport, fly out. Let's say, I'm going to say $250 million.

0:42:08 Andrew: Yeah.

0:42:21 Andrew: Yeah, you're you're not far off. It is one point two million dollars in expenses over those five years that

0:42:30 Thomas: Okay, I've pretty far off, but just for the record. But $1.2 million for expenses. That's a lot of Big Macs.

0:42:37 Andrew: May be the highest level of reimbursable expense. Because, again, right, this we're not talking about a close corporation. We are talking about a charity. Right. We we have folks come on our show who work for charities. Right? We've we've had Andrew Seidel on. We've had Alison Gill from American Atheist. These are nonprofit corporations that everybody works. Right! And those folks are are getting paid a small fraction of what they they would get paid in, in the public sector and they get reimbursed for the bare minimum of, of their expenses. Uh, the idea that you could rack up, uh, on average, almost $300,000 a year in reimbursable expenses. Um, since I know they both listened to the show, I'll just let them choke on whatever beverage They they're they're drinking. So there you have it. One point two million in reimbursable expenses. That does not count direct expenditures billed to the organization, which it again, if I had to ask, like classic corrupt, Rich white guy expense that's billed through improperly, uh,

0:43:54 Thomas: I'm gonna say suits, haircuts, car. Is there a boat involved? Anything like that? Well, okay, sure.

0:43:55 Andrew: Oh, How about private charter flights to the Bahamas, uh, with a stopover in North Platte, Nebraska to drop off, uh, his niece and her family. And again, as somebody who has never chartered a private plane, not even in my Covington days, these, these flights are arranged from a low of about $10,000 to a high, and again, this is paragraph 152, to a height of almost $80,000 for a flight. Right, these are allegations. Presumably these are provable allegations. That There, I will say this right now. There, there is no possible demonstrated need for charitable organization to charter an $80,000 plane flight for someone.

0:44:55 Andrew: That is inconsistent. It is prima facie a violation of your fiduciary duty to the organization.

0:45:03 Thomas: Yeah, And it's such an example, by the way, of the larger, and this is opinion time, of course, but the larger theme of the Republican Party is rich people convincing a bunch of poor people that they shouldn't give society any benefits or health insurance or whatever. Imagine the donations from small town folks who just believe in gun rights and all this, and all that is going to some guy chartering flights left and right for eighty thousand dollars. Um, it's disgusting and I think it's a microcosm of of a larger problem with the right, in my opinion. La,

0:45:38 Andrew: That is right. So let's unpack that a little bit. It's unconscionably worse in the charitable context because of what you just said, right? Which is the assets under management by the the National Rifle Association, are donations from individuals for a charitable cause. And when you have a fiduciary duty, that means you look at it and go, hey, we only have so much money here. We beg for it from people. We should spend it in ways that are consistent with our mission. How about I take an $80,000 plane flight, right? Like, are you kidding me? Like, it is on face preposterous. And I want to add one last thing, which is most places, right, the NRA is the only organization that conducts appropriate and necessary firearms training safety courses, right?

0:46:33 Andrew: Right. Like that. That is if you want to. I have two separate clients that do firearms instructions. They both listen to the show. So, you know, they're aware of my political views and they teach people safely how to shoot guns. And they had to get certified by the NRA. Right. Like the N.R.A. produces those course materials. Right? So, you know, it's easy to think about the NRA as sort of the you know like the lobbying giant with disproportional political power that they are. That's all true. But that's built on an infrastructure of something that actually does good for people in society. So, The second bucket are charges three to six and count 16. I said charges, but I should say counts three to 6.

0:47:20 Andrew: This is a civil complaint, right? These are not criminal charges, charges. Also, count 16, which is the New York Prudent Manage of Institutional Funds Act, which is a separate law that says each person responsible for managing and investing an institutional fund shall manage such fund in good faith and with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances. It is not prudent management of assets to start taking $80,000 plane flights.

0:47:49 Thomas: Pierre's like, oh, let he who has not chartered an eighty thousand dollar flight cast the first stone.

0:47:54 Andrew: You and I are on the, on the sidelines of a big bucket of rocks. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Third bucket are interested transactions. And here's, here's where the numbers get really large. And, And let's explain this out. If I run a charity, say all of a sudden I am the executive director or I'm on the board of directors for a particular charity, I could hire my law office to represent that charity. However, to do so, I have to jump through all kinds of hoops, right? Right. Like I would have to demonstrate to a third party auditor. I've talked about this before. I've actually served as a third-party auditor in one of these transactions to say, hey, nobody but the law offices of P.

0:47:54 Thomas: Yeah, Easy, yeah, okay, yeah,

0:48:46 Andrew: Andrew Torrez will do. And I realize that our executive director is recommending that the charity on which he serves hire his firm. Here's how we made this decision neutrally at arm's length on the basis of merit alone. Here is how the payments are going to be at market rate. Right. Like you would you would have to jump through a lot of hoops such that, full disclosure, I have never recommended any charity on the board of which I sit.

0:49:18 Thomas: It sounds like a pain. However,

0:49:19 Andrew: Why? Why would I do that?

0:49:20 Thomas: It also sounds like Like what Trump has done with all the, like, the inauguration funds that have gone to all these vendors that are probably tied to him and his friend, like, there's a ton of that going on there, um, will we ever, will this ever happen to that, or are we never gonna, there's

0:49:36 Andrew: Oh, yeah. No, look, I think we will still we will also see disentangling of the Trump board. Look, like our show, our show will have a rich vein to mine in the event that that Joe Biden is elected in 2021.

0:49:37 Thomas: No, okay. I don't want to set you off. I just, quick question, can't. Yeah, oh, Yeah, Oh, I'm not worried at all, it's gonna to take centuries to track down all the damage and fraud that's gone on.

0:49:57 Andrew: So there are four vendors. These vendors are called Associated Television International Inc., Membership Marketing Partners, Allegiance Creative Group, and I know you're going to ask the question here, I don't think it has any relation to the Russian troll farm, but I can't be certain, Concord Social and Public Relations. So not Concord Management, not Concorde Catering, weird that that name shows up. Those four vendors have received,

0:50:36 Thomas: Now can I do my $250 million guess?

0:50:38 Andrew: They have received over $100 million from the NRA.

0:50:43 Thomas: See, I was closer on

0:50:44 Andrew: Yeah.

0:50:44 Thomas: That one.

0:50:45 Andrew: And four vendors all overlap. Right. They have the same kinds of they have what are called interlocking directorates. Right? They have the same chief executive officer, right? So MMP, Allegiance and Concord all have the same chief executive officer. They all have the same business address, all three of those. And remember that pin I told you to put in Fairfax, Virginia? Yeah, they are all headquartered in the same building that the NRA is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia. So sounds legit.

0:51:10 Thomas: Wow. Wow, sounds legit. What?

0:51:25 Andrew: Exactly right. So this is a of the allegations. Counts 7 through 10, 11 through 13, 14 and 18 are all different ways of coming at this notion that the individuals, right, LaPierre and the three amigos, engaged in a series of high dollar value, interested transactions that were not conducted at arm's length, that were intended to convey unjust benefits to friends and cronies. And, yeah, of course, there is, you know, the CEO of one of these vendors, you know, winds up just happenstance to, you know, let Wayne LaPierre use his yacht, right?

0:52:16 Andrew: Just the kind of stuff that or may not in the age of McDonnell v. U.S., you know, from Bob McDonnell, governor of Virginia, we've talked about this with with Randall Eliason, right, might not rise to the level of corruption and bribery for a U.S. government employee, but definitely violates the duty of good faith that you have as a director of a charity, right? Like, because you have a higher fiduciary duty than the governor of the state of Virginia.

0:52:51 Thomas: That seems wrong.

0:52:52 Andrew: That does seem wrong, and we should change that. But for our purposes, that's where we are.

0:52:52 Thomas: Probably.

0:53:19 Andrew: Internal retaliation, which is, you know, the opposite of what a charity is supposed to do. And four more pages of materially false state filings that the NRA made, which again, you would think since those are regulatory filings, that the state of New York probably has pretty good evidence with respect to that. Again, these are all obviously fact questions. You can allege anything in a complaint. They could, it could all be made up. Um, I will tell you as a lawyer, uh, this does not have, this does Not have the indicia of stuff that's made up, right?

When Like, you don't know and you suspect, you say, on information and belief, this is X. I I will tell you that this lawsuit uses the phrase on information and belief 88 times, right? So, right, in areas where they don't know, they will say. So let me give you a perfectly normal example, paragraphs 179 and 180, which relate to Wayne LaPierre's personal travel consultant who was put on the NRA payroll to manage all the travel that Wayne is doing, right? And it says, upon information and belief, LaPierre, one of his senior advisors and the executive director of advancement, are the only current employees who have used LaPiers travel consultant to make travel arrangements.

0:53:48 Thomas: Not Made up, yeah.

0:54:40 Andrew: And the next paragraph says, Upon information and belief these invoices, which it then says $15,000 a month, were for the same travel booking services. Beginning in May 2015, that increased, that monthly fee increased to $19,000. And upon information and belief, the nature and scope of his services remain unchanged, right? So you see there, right, where they don't fully know the relationship between the NRA and the travel consultant, smart lawyers drafting will say, yeah, upon information, we think so. We got a couple of these receipts. It looks like his job stayed the same. We don't think it changed. And all of a sudden, you know, he was paying him $15,000 a month, which we thought was bad. And then he just jacked up his rates to $19,000.

0:55:27 Andrew: A month without changing the services he was providing. Uh, we think, right. So the drafters of this lawsuit knew how to, to use that phrase. They use it 88 times. They they use it in places to indicate uncertainty. The overwhelming majority of these allegations that I have described to you are not so bracketed. Right. Which, again, surmising leads me to believe that there is adequate documentation to support. Right. You don't say Wayne LaPierre received one point two million dollars in reimbursable expenses unless you have receipts that add up to one point three million dollars. Right. That's just that's the way lawyers plead this thing. There you go. Took took the whole show. But I think it was worth doing and breaking down.

0:56:14 Andrew: And let's let's lets end where we began with. This is not a political witch hunt. This is this is not about liberals who hate what the NRA does. This has nothing to do. There's not a single allegation in this hundred and sixty-four page complaint about, you know, that that could be argued on gun control grounds. Right. Like that was the first thing I thought when I looked at it would be like, OK, well, there'll be a count in here about endangering children.

0:56:21 Thomas: Yeah.

0:56:38 Thomas: There's No paragraph that's Like, well, Scalia

0:56:42 Andrew: Children.

0:56:43 Thomas: Ruined the whole thing. None of that.

0:56:45 Andrew: None of that. It is entirely about corruption. The kind of corruption that, you know, as you point out, has become commonplace in the Trump administration. But but don't don't let anybody tell you differently. This is not a hatchet job. This This is not a political attack. This is about Wayne LaPierre becoming the David Miscavige of the NRA, working his way in, bringing on his trusted associates, gutting any possibility.

0:57:18 Thomas: Milking it for all it's worth. Well,

0:57:20 Andrew: Yep. And and gutting the internal checks that would keep him, you know, that would that would Keep somebody else from from challenging his authority. Wordy.

0:57:30 Thomas: I'm gonna be sad to see him go he was doing some good deep undercover Antifa work. That's too bad. Might be a net negative for uh, anti-gun people all

0:57:33 Andrew: Yeah, yeah. It might be So there You go.

0:57:39 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

0:57:40 Thomas: Now it is time to thank our new patrons over on patreon.com/law. Hope you're enjoying all the goodies. We had a great time at the live uh q a over on YouTube last week, last Saturday I think it was, um, for everyone who can't make it, we post the high quality audio on Patreon, or you can just hop on over to YouTube and re-watch it. Uh, but we had lot of fun. Uh, keep, keep coming, keep joining us live. Uh, the chat is a a good time. And then we hope our patrons are enjoying the perks. So, Andrew, I'm going to start us off in the patron thanks with a thank you to Allison, thank you, Emily Wilding, the Samureiser, oh, Richard Burghardt, Don Ackerman, Emory, we're living in the darkest timeline, knowing more about US law than my own country's. Thanks to this podcast.

0:58:27 Thomas: Nice. And I have no standing to be here. Sure you do. You pledged. You got all the standing you could use. Your Your turn Andrew

0:58:27 Andrew: Thank Thank you to Christopher Spruce, to Dick C. Normous, good, good work, I, I, that's one of my all-time favorite fake names, uh, Kimberly Rhoten, uh, or if it's Kimberly Rotten, I apologize for that, uh, a legally binding pinky promise, that, that could be a thing seriously, to Paul, to embrace your own void, this is mine, uh, that's a lot of, like, a lot acclaimants on this void, man, to Zero, and to Jennifer Smith, and boy I hope that is my childhood friend Jennifer Smith, so uh, if so, thank you so much for supporting, if, if you're not, maybe you'll be my friend. So, thank you all for supporting the show over at patreon.com/law, where you get all the crazy benefits we've already shilled for in this episode already.

0:59:25 Thomas: All right

0:59:25 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:59:31 Thomas: Right well now it's time for t3be uh Time to redeem myself.

0:59:34 Andrew: Time here we go thomas us, a farmer kept

0:59:38 Thomas: Oh, great. I hear farmer. I'm already thinking real property, but maybe not. Maybe not.

0:59:46 Andrew: In an uninhabited farmhouse on his property. The farmhouse had been broken into several times in the past, and some of the farmer's goods had been stolen. Instead of posting no trespassing signs, the farmer decided to install an alarm system to deter intruders. While the farmer was in the farmhouse installing the alarm system, him he heard a window open in the adjoining room. The farmer crept very quietly to the door of the room, threw the door open, and found an intruder, a young child. The farmer immediately Struck the child, a 10 year old girl, very hard in the face, breaking her nose. In an action on behalf of the child against the farmer to recover for the injury to her nose, is the child likely to prevail? Yep.

1:00:17 Thomas: Wow.

1:00:33 Thomas: She wants a new nose, damn it.

1:00:35 Andrew: Yep. Yep. A. No, because the farmer did not use deadly force. B. No. Because the farmer had probable cause to believe that the child was a thief. C. Yes. Becausethe farmer should have posted a no trespassing sign. Or D. Yes, becausethe farmer used excessive force.

1:00:40 Thomas: Huh?

1:00:58 Thomas: Oh, what a weird question.

1:01:00 Andrew: Not a real property question, though.

1:01:00 Thomas: I'll tell you this. I'm about 95% certain I will get this wrong because it's just such a weird question. I'm already thrown off by the fact that like instead of instead of posting a no trespassing sign, something that does nothing, The farmer decided to do something that would do something. It's weird that it framed it that way. Like, OK, here's here's what is going to throw me. I'll tell you why I'm going to get this one wrong. I don't think a no trespassing sign is anything. I don'T I don't think that de facto trespassing is OK unless you see a sign. And then it's like, well, no, you can't, in that case, if you see a sign, that, that's the problem. It makes no sense to me.

I feel like, uh, the sign should be no part of this. That's stupid, but, uh, maybe since it's a child, oh, we've talked about this before, there's some, there's some reasonable expectation that a child should know something. Gosh, we've had some question kind of like this. All right, let's go through it. Farmer, I like that the farmer very clearly identifies, identifies that it's a young child.

1:01:17 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah.

1:02:05 Thomas: It was like, sorry, punching you in the face. That farmer is not happy about the trespassing that's been happening. So, okay, pretty basic. I don't know. I don't know that I need to go through the facts again. Farmhouse has been broken into several times. That may factor in. I'll just try to hit the highlights here. Goods been stolen. Didn't post no trespassing sign, as we said. Starts installing an alarm. While installing the alarm, child breaks in. The farmer crept very quietly, found the intruder, struck the child in the face, broke the nose. All right, does the child get to prevail in the injury? A, no, because the farmer did not use deadly force. Doesn't, doesn't seem right to me. I feel like it'd be weird if it's like, if you encounter a child on your property, anything up until deadly force is okay.

1:03:00 Thomas: That's a freebie. I don't think that's right. We'll see. Who knows? B, no, because the farmer had probable cause to believe the child was a thief. Again, I don't know that that's possible. I'll put B down as it could be, but I still don't think you're allowed to go punch a child thief in the face. I mean, again, I could be wrong, but it it doesn't seem right, but don't see. Yes, because the farmer should have posted a no trespassing sign. That just seems incredibly stupid. But if that's right, it may be because of the 10 year old part. Like, you know, 10 year olds are so dumb. You have to post a sign that says no. But like, I don't know. Is there an entity in the world that that knows what no trespassing means.

1:03:47 Thomas: And so if they see it on a sign, they know not to trespass versus they wouldn't already know that no, you can't just break into somebody's farmhouse. I don't know. Seems stupid to me. So C, C will be the right answer, but I just, I cannot in good conscience guess it. And then D, yes, because the farmer used excessive force. So D seems pretty straightforward to me that, that seems like the one that I would go with.

Um, so if I guess, if I were to narrow it down, C, again, I'm not even gonna, C is not even on my list, even though for stupid reasons that'll probably be the answer, and I, I'm just not gonna play that game. I don't care if that's the law, then I disagree with it. So I'm, I'm done with C. No C. Um, B or D are kind of the ones that I would go with.

That's like, B is the best no and D is the best yes. So B, saying no, because the farmer had probable cause to believe the child was a thief, or D, yes, because the farmer used excessive force. Based on this fact pattern, you know, there doesn't seem to be any

1:04:46 Thomas: Reason that the farmer should have punched the child. Like, I don't really, you know, it's, that doesn't really make any sense as an action. I don't think you can just find someone in your house and I don't know, it seems like it would be pretty easy for a farmer to see a 10 year old girl and, in their farmer brain, I don't care how many times you've been stolen from, not punch a 10 year old girl in the face. That seems pretty easy to do. To, you know, so I'm gonna go with D, yes, because the farmer used excessive force. So make sure to submit your guesses of C, everybody. Whoa.

1:05:22 Andrew: So I'm going to I'm going to play this one a little differently after after hearing you analyze this. And I'm going to say the following. Right. The first is I I don't know with certainty what the answer is. I agree. My answer would also be D for For exactly, for exactly, I have not looked at the answer yet, for exactly the reasons that you have articulated. So I will only accept on T3BE for potential winning answers, whether we're right or not, guesses of A, B, or C and the reasons therefore, right? So plan it a little differently this time and you and I will rise or fall together with the D answer. Sir, I have to tell you, I don't love D as an answer, but I, I like

1:05:41 Thomas: Wait. You haven't looked at the answer this time. Oh. Wow.

1:05:59 Thomas: Okay. Ah. Yeah. I didn't either.

1:06:12 Andrew: It. I like versus the field for exactly the reasons that you've articulated. So if I were taking the bar exam, that's

1:06:19 Thomas: Well, we'll be wrong together. I, I'm so glad I took a stand against C and I'm glad you're joining me, wow, this is nice, Andrew, huh.

1:06:21 Andrew: What I would do. Yeah. I think you're, I think your absolutely right on C and

1:06:29 Thomas: We'll

1:06:29 Andrew: If I'm wrong, it will, um, it will it will change my view of personal

1:06:32 Thomas: Be wrong together and we can we'll we'll march to Washington to change this yeah we'll change this no trespassing law, common law concept anyway, uh, well, that's fun. All right, wow.

1:06:36 Andrew: Injury torts law from 13th century Saxony, so so chance to prove both Thomas and Andrew wrong. You know how to do that, just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag T3BE, include your guests, your reasons therefore. We will pick a winner and shower that person with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortune not guaranteed.

1:07:00 Thomas: And You know what this means? I can't lose. There's no, no downside for me, either we're both wrong and that you're going to be probably more angry than I will be, or we're both right and that's fine. Right, well, that's our show. Ha, thanks, Andrew, for that extensive breakdown of this big news. What a turnaround. I mean, how quickly you're able to give great analysis on something that just broke. I, for one, appreciate it. I'm sure the listeners do as well. And, uh, screw the NRA.

1:07:01 Andrew: Is that Yep.

1:07:27 Thomas: Uh, go New York, uh, good, good times. All, all right, thanks so much for listening, folks. We'll see you next time.

1:07:34 Clip: He's not even a lawyer and he's kicking your ass.

1:08:07 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC. All rights reserved. It is produced with the assistance of transcriptionist Heather Loveridge, production assistant Ashley Smith, and additional contributions from Morgan Stringer and Deborah Smith. Special thanks to Teresa Gomez, who runs our live shows and heads up the OA Wiki. Follow at OA Wiki on Twitter. Additional thanks to the moderators of the Opening Argiments Facebook community, Emily Waters, Alicia Cook, Eric Brewer, Natalie Newell, Brian Ziegenhagen, and Teresa. And finally, thanks to Thomas Smith, who edits the show and created the fabulous theme music, which was used with permission.