OA453: Treason's Greetings

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 453. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How you doing, Andrew?

0:01:25 Andrew: I'm fantastic, Thomas. How are you? Happy New Year again.

0:01:29 Thomas: Yeah! We're recording this ahead of time so we can't say for sure if it actually is the new year. I can't believe that's the world we live in, but I'm actually not sure. I am agnostic. But assuming it all went to plan, welcome to 2021, everybody.

0:01:45 Andrew: Woo!

0:01:45 Thomas: It's a new day. Day.

0:01:46 Andrew: I'll be writing 1985 on all my checks, so don't

0:01:48 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, this new year, we've got a great episode for you. We've got a fantastic return to true OA form with a deep dive, legal deep dive. Can't wait. We're also going to talk about a few electiony things because guess what? It's over, beast. Still, still over. Trump's still lost. It's nice. You know, it has been nice to have him lose so many times. It helps a little bit, take the sting off it a little Bit. So yeah, I don't even think we have any announcements.

0:02:21 Andrew: No, let's just get into it. Oh,

0:02:22 Thomas: Okay. Let's

0:02:24 Clip: Joe Biden will become the 46th president of the United States. This election is not over. It's over, beast. This is a major fraud in our nation. If you count the legal votes, I easily win. You lose. It's Over Beast.

0:02:48 Thomas: So Andrew, we're closing in on the Georgia special election. We're so close. Uh, what can we expect,

0:02:48 Andrew: Yeah, well, while people are listening to it, that will be taking place today, right. So here's here's the thing that I want you to understand. And has said that when we talked to the Warnock campaign, to the Ossoff campaign in connection with the fantastic fundraisers you guys made happen, Jamil Favors said, we don't expect to have results Tuesday night. Right. Look, it will be great. Right. But but it would be beyond our wildest dreams if Ossoff and Warnock have leads, you know, of three, four or five percent that, you know, with without the bulk of the votes coming in from Atlanta tonight. That is not very likely. Right? The polling shows all of this within a margin of of error.

0:03:01 Thomas: I'm

0:03:46 Andrew: I think there are a lot of good reasons to think that things are trending in the right direction. So I just want to say, you know, just like we said over the presidential election, be, patient. We're down to the homestretch here. And I know that a lot rides on these races. We, we feel like we pulled out all the stops. But, you know, if you don't have, have results that, that doesn't mean that the good guys have lost. So, uh, I wanted to flag that. And then I want to talk about an unbelievably stupid thing that's happening today. No I

0:04:17 Thomas: Yeah, oh gosh, I'm so nervous about this whole thing, Andrew, I, I haven't, I haven't wanted, you know, I want to hope, but I'm also, I'm not looking at a poll, I'm never looking at any polls for this Georgia election, and I've stuck to that, my old year's resolution was don't look at polls, my new year's resolution would be don't look at polls on this thing. And I just want so badly for Warnock and Ossoff to win that I, I, I don't know what to say, I'm hope, I'm just hoping so much, and we're gonna know somewhat soon, you know, and if we're soon here, and uh, I'm just gonna have several heart attacks from now until then, so I don't have anything to add.

0:04:52 Andrew: All Of those are very, very healthy responses. How about I, how about I say I agree with you on that, yeah. It, it

0:04:58 Thomas: At least We've done so much, and our dear listeners have done so much to, uh, to try to make this happen.

0:05:02 Andrew: I, it It It Is, I mean, I am, I am just blown away. Uh, our, I don't know if we ever announced, they don't, they don't actually shut down our ActBlue link, up, yep.

0:05:04 Thomas: Yeah.

0:05:16 Thomas: Yeah, maybe it'll get to a million, who knows, was uh, still open.

0:05:19 Andrew: As of this record, we raised 86,485 dollars, um, that, that is, and, and I say we, I, I truly mean, like, you know, you, you and I coordinated and made some phone calls, and, you know, brought in some of our friends, um, our, our listeners made that happen. Tom and Cecil had the, the first go round, and they made almost one hundred and forty thousand dollars happen. I mean, that is, just we're a bunch of atheist podcasters, man, like, it to, to be in that space and to have materially made a difference on a level that, you know, your local, you typically think about, like, you know, big money handlers bundling together, uh, you know, 50 or 100 000 in donations, uh, we, uh, we, we blew through that, and um, I'm still kind of blown away by that, and how awesome our listeners are. So, fingers crossed, it's all turnout, it's everything, and we just don't know, we're not gonna know, and it's okay have some mental internal peace until we do know. I'm Trying, buddy, I'm doing, want my best.

0:05:24 Thomas: Cool, okay.

0:06:35 Thomas: Sure, easy. I'll Just do that. I'll have mental internal peace.

0:06:39 Andrew: Oh. How about something where we could laugh at idiots? Will that will that make you happier?

0:06:46 Thomas: Okay. That Will help a little bit. Hey,

0:06:47 Andrew: Okay so today, uh, the Senate's own Cory, um, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who I believe is 40 years old, uh, looks 27 and acts 12, um, who was

0:06:59 Thomas: Well, let's not forget that they actually have Cory Booker. So, So, you know, I don't want to, he's a good Corey.

0:07:00 Andrew: Yeah Yeah, well, I, I don't That's, yeah, um, Josh Holly, Josh is enough, right? There shouldn't be any Joshes on the federal bench either. Again, lurched hard into Trump's arms, a la, like, the you know, king of the world scene from Titanic. Like, I, it just, it, it got named.

0:07:07 Thomas: Yeah, as a Josh, yeah.

0:07:21 Andrew: Yeah.

0:07:20 Thomas: Well, an apt metaphor, because it's

0:07:22 Andrew: Yeah, because they all went down, uh, on a ship and died, so um, yeah, uh, this is somebody who then got himself on the Supreme Court shortlist. Um, so, you know, when it comes to jumping up at the back of the class and waving your arm around and going, "Oh, Donald, Donald, Donald, Donald, pick me," Josh Hawley has managed to do that. He is going to engage in a stunt today as you're listening to the show. It is a complete stunt. It is going absolutely nowhere. I'm going to explain all the myriad ways why it is going nowhere. I'm gonna tell you why it is not, right? Fox News has already been priming the airwaves with, well, you know, the Democrats, Democrats did this in 2004 and nobody cared.

0:07:23 Thomas: A sinking ship, yeah,

0:08:11 Andrew: And no, they didn't. And I'm going to tell you why that's a big fat lie. But this is not going to be a last ditch Hail Mary to to unsuit the president. Yeah, go ahead.

0:08:24 Thomas: Well, someone you know AG was tweeting to effect that this happened in 2016 and it didn't matter. So I was curious to ask you about that. I mean, on what level, is there a sense in which, which, because, you know, when I saw that Josh was going to do this, I thought, okay, well, this is, this is horrible. This is treason. It's whatever. But you know if it is true that some Democrats did this in 2016 and we didn't even hear about it, then maybe that would put a different spin on it. And maybe the media is making too much of this.

0:08:55 Andrew: I love that you phrased the question that way. And let me talk about the applicable law. Right. So this is all part of the Presidential Election Act. Right? And these have been around in various forms since the founding of the republic. This particular provision, 3 U.S.C. 15, was initially passed in 1877 and amended in 1948. And not super duper clear. But here's essentially what these provisions, right? The first couple of of Chapter 3 of the U.S. Code are meant to implement the provisions of the Constitution, and particularly with respect to presidential elections.

0:09:42 Andrew: And so this says Section 15 is about how we go about counting the electoral votes in Congress. And here's the procedure. OK, so Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January, succeeding every meeting of the electors. So that'll be January 6th. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon on that day. I just love the old-timeyness in this law. And the president of the Senate, that is, Vice President Mike Pence, shall be their presiding officer. Officer, two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of The House of Representatives to whom shall be handed, as opened by the president of the Senate, all of the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the states, beginning with the letter A. It actually says that.

0:10:41 Thomas: Thank you for, okay. Good. Okay. I learned something here today. All right.

0:10:45 Andrew: And said tellers having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates, and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the results of the same shall be delivered to the president of the senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the The persons, if any, elected president and vice president of the United States.

0:11:16 Andrew: And then there's. Yeah. OK. Totally straightforward. Right. Pence comes in. There's a little bit of this pomp and circumstance. You got these two tellers from the Senate, two tellers from the House. They read it out in alphabetical order. And Mike Pence says, "I certify that Alabama casts its 10 electoral votes for Donald Trump." It goes through in order. The next section, and this is all one big paragraph, one huge wall of text. The next paragraph says, "Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing and shall state clearly and concisely and without argument the ground thereof and shall be signed by at least one one senator and one member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received."

0:11:16 Thomas: Et cetera, et cetera.

0:11:26 Thomas: Yeah.

0:12:11 Andrew: That's the thing that Josh Hawley is doing. He is going to file objection or objections to various totals of electoral votes as they are read.

0:12:25 Thomas: Hero. Hero. Truly a hero.

0:12:25 Andrew: OK, yeah, Then what happens? Right. Right. So Senator Josh Hawley is teaming up with, you know, one of the howler monkeys from the QAnon caucus from the House of Representatives. Right. Like it's not hard to find somebody in the House or representatives to do this. It was a challenge finding somebody in the Senate willing to do this. What happens when there's an objection? Well, the paragraph continues when all objections so made to any vote or paper from a state shall have been received and read. The Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision. And the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decisions, and no electoral vote or votes from any state which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified, according to Section 6 of this title, right. That's the Safe Harbor Act. We've talked about that before.

0:12:41 Thomas: Yeah.

0:13:26 Andrew: From which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two houses concurrently may reject the voter votes when they agree that such voter votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a state shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes and those only shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned previously in this section. Okay, what?

0:13:58 Thomas: So I know you're presenting this as like, look at this thing a dummy is doing. That's not going to work. But does this sound like if Republicans controlled the House, this could be some BS way they could steal an election?

0:14:08 Andrew: No, right. Um, They would have to control the House, number two, um, they would, would have to be in the state in which they are now, which is completely willing to jettison democracy.

0:14:09 Thomas: Okay.

0:14:22 Thomas: Okay. Check.

0:14:23 Andrew: Yeah, get check. And number three, and this is really the most important thing, the fact that the law says this as a way of implementing the Constitution does not prove that this mechanism is itself constitutional. And in fact, it is very, very clear to me that That if you were to pull shenanigans, right, if you were to say, OK, we're not going to be able to certify these votes because of error, like that's what both the Senate and the House have said. And so we're going to come back and we're gonna do something else, even though it doesn't meet the plain criteria of the statute, right? Like even though there were no alternate. Remember when everyone was concerned about that, how states were going to submit alternate slates and

0:14:39 Thomas: Interesting.

0:15:11 Thomas: Yeah,

0:15:11 Andrew: And Pennsylvania's Republican legislator was going to give an alternate list of electors. That's what this provision is for. Right. This provision is for when the Senate has two people show up and go, those aren't the electoral votes. These are the electoral voters. And then you would adjourn.

0:15:11 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah and they're both clones and the Senate to shoot, uh-huh

0:15:29 Andrew: Right, yeah. And obviously, you know, you pick the one that says shoot me, right? That you say, oh, I'm going to shoot the other one. But no, like, this is meant to have resolved the controversy, right? Remember I told you that the first version of this was passed in 1877, well, 1876, right, was the uh, Tilden-Rutherford B. Hayes race, right?

Um, and there were multiple slates of electors, um, and the verdict of history is probably that Hayes stole that election from Tilden, okay, um, and so this was designed to say all right, we're going to streamline that procedure, if there are multiple elect, uh, slates of electors that are out there, we adjourn and the House and the Senate gets to pick which ones, uh, which one is is the real one and which one was written on a cocktail napkin, right, um, now nobody has lined up, right, like, uh, prominent Republicans have said, uh, this is is nonsense, we're not uh going to sign on to, you know, decertifying any results on any electors in the House, but but even if they did, right, to to take away the results of a lawful election by statute because it says Congress would do that, like, I feel confident, and I want to say this, like, I feel confidence that even this Supreme Court would look at this statute and go, no, not not, that's not, that is not a constitutional exercise of the powers of Congress.

0:15:51 Thomas: Of course wow so

0:17:02 Andrew: And we're going to strike down that provision of this law that enables them to throw out electoral votes, because effectively what that says is Congress can orchestrate who the next president is. Right. Like that. If that were to happen, then you would not need to control both the White House and both houses of Congress, You would only need to control both houses of Congress. Right. So imagine that they do that. Right? You would then have in 2024 a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives, regardless of whether the, you know, Mike Pence is still vice president and still, you Know, ostensibly president of the Senate.

0:17:47 Andrew: He reads the votes. They file the objections. Congress adjourns. They come back and go, guess what? We've thrown out all the Republican votes. It can't. Whenever there's something where you're like, it can't possibly work that way, you're probably correct in thinking it won't work thatway. About the 2004 that we talked about? I'm going to provide a link to a story from January 6th, 2005 on CNN. What happened in 2004 was that there was a there was very public criticism of the use and contracts being given out to voting machines, particularly in the state of Ohio. Doesn't do me any good to say this is cred now, but I think OA listeners will find this plausible. I was never a big believer in those criticisms.

Robert John F. Kennedy Jr., uh, wrote a piece for Rolling Stone magazine, um, and again, uh, he wrote that piece in 2006, um, but, uh, it was that was the part of kind of a long simmering sort of years worth of, uh, investigative journalism and reporting arguing that, um, the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio. His conclusion was, quote, "After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the part, the president's party, that mean being George W. Bush, uh, the Republican Party, mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004." Okay, so pretty strong claims, um, I did not, uh, subscribe, I did not find those claims compelling back then, um,

0:19:36 Andrew: As a conspiracy theory

0:19:36 Thomas: Also rfk junior is an anti-vax conspiracy theorist. So perhaps, perhaps he's a little conspiracy theory minded and that spilled over into this.

0:19:38 Andrew: Yep perhaps um, it it, look, I I want to say that article, you can you can go read that article, um, it is orders of magnitude more credible than anything Sydney Powell has ever said, yeah, right it's just it's not, it's the rantings of a crazy person who's spread feces on the wall, right, it's just the the rantings of a person who was conspiracy minded, um, drawing connections that I think lacked sufficient evidence, but in any event, um, was orchestrated in 2005. And again, again, I'm going to read directly, Google this yourself, I read directly from the the CNN article, I'm to cite to you for for proof, for your Uncle Frank, the archives.gov page of the 2004 Electoral College results, which show that the both houses voted to override the objection that, right, it was an objection filed by Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones from Ohio and Senator Barbara Boxer from your state that was designed to draw attention to voting machines.

0:19:59 Thomas: Oh yeah, that's not hard.

0:20:58 Andrew: They were overruled 74 to 1 in the Senate and 267 to 31 in the House of Representatives.

0:21:07 Andrew: The objections were not designed to overturn the result of the election. Right. Quote, the move was not designed to overturn the re-election of President Bush, said Ohio Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and California Senator Barbara Boxer, who, again, you know, you may remember as not exactly a bomb thrower. Right. Who filed the objection? The objecting Democrats, most of whom are House members, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems. Right. Members of the group said there were numerous, particularly serious election irregularities in Ohio that led to a significant disenfranchisement of voters. OK, so I wanted to introduce all of that because this is making the rounds in right wing media.

0:21:54 Andrew: This vote in 2004 is probably not something I would have supported had I been in the legislature. But it was very clearly I read you the words of the people who filed those objections. Right. It was not designed to overturn Ohio's electoral votes. They knew it was going to lose. They did it to draw attention. And, you know, you could argue how effective they were in drawing attention to those issues. But nobody was trying to overturn the election. You contrast that with what Hawley is doing. Donald Trump is holding a rally today as Josh Hawley is about to pull the stunt, right? Republicans who support this honestly want to overturn the electoral results in four states and make Donald Trump president. That's the difference. And do not let anybody sell you a false equivalence of that anybody has ever tried this before or will ever Try this again. This is absolutely unprecedented. And the happy news is it's not going to happen. It's going nowhere. There are multiple levels of protection. Are there less protections that I would like?

0:22:16 Thomas: So

0:23:02 Andrew: Probably. But it's not going anywhere. You're going to be fine. You'll see this all in the news today. And we will have covered this. We are so confident about this that we're recording it in advance.

0:23:11 Thomas: In other words, what I think you're saying is it's over, beast?

0:23:15 Andrew: Exactly. Couldn't put it better myself. Yeah.

0:23:17 Thomas: Well noted, all

0:23:20 Clip: The law breaking down

0:23:26 Thomas: Right, Andrew, I I was promised a signature OA deep dive, return to pre-2017 OA, uh, what are we talking about today in our deep dive?

0:23:36 Andrew: I thought this was a perfect opportunity to talk about a letter dated December 22nd that made the rounds last week, particularly in left wing circles, cheering for the law firm of Clare Locke LLP, which represents U.S. Dominion Inc., right? Dominion, the company that is the parent company to Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., Dominion Voting Systems Corporation, right? Like they're the guys that run the machines that you've heard so much about. This letter is called a litigation hold letter. And as I read the first paragraph, you'll see why lots of liberals were kind of standing up and clapping. And I'm going, going to tell you why I think this is wrong.

0:24:21 Andrew: It begins, "Dear Ms. Carone," and now this is Melissa Carone, as we, uh, as we alluded to, uh, last week's episode, uh, this is drunky McDrunkerson from Rudy Giuliani's, um, you know, cavalcade of, uh, you know, I, I, it's kind of like the Magical Mystery Tour, only without any magic or mystery, but, um, so she was the one who testified rather intoxicatedly that, well, you don't know that they don't have proof of all the voter fraud. Why? Oh, yeah, I bet you did that, along with them and, you know, caused an Arizona Republican to say, "Ma'am, I am a Republican who voted for Donald Trump." But so Dominion has now sent the following letter to Ms.

0:25:09 Andrew: Carone, quote, "You gained international infamy earlier this month as Rudy Giuliani's so-called star witness who could supposedly corroborate outlandish accusations that Dominion has somehow rigged or otherwise improperly influenced the outcome of the November 2020 U.S. presidential election. Without a shred of corresponding evidence, you claim that you witnessed several different versions of voter fraud, ranging from one story involving a van to other accusations that votes were counted multiple times.

You published those statements even though you knew all along that your attacks on Dominion have no basis in reality. Last week we sent letters to Sydney Powell and various media entities demanding retraction of their myriad false and conspiratorial claims about Dominion. We write to you now because you have positioned yourself as a prominent leader of the ongoing misinformation campaign by pretending to have some sort of insider knowledge regarding Dominion's business activities," when in reality you were hired through a staffing agency for one day to clean glass on machines and complete other menial tasks. Based on these facts, Dominion formally demands that you one, cease and desist making defamatory claims against Dominion, and two, preserve and retain all documents related to Dominion and your smear campaign against the company. Okay, so funny stuff, And I laughed too. Here's what a litigation hold letter is for. I file these as we anticipate litigation against other companies. And the reason you do so is because companies maintain, have a typical document retention and destruction policy, right? Right. So employee emails, for example, are kept for a time and then scrubbed off the server to save space.

0:26:10 Thomas: Yeah

0:26:57 Andrew: And then if there's, you know, a backup created, you Know, those backups are kept for a period of time, and then the backups are deleted. Right. It's the same thing with documents, right? There are some documents that you are required to maintain for long periods But otherwise, right, the reason there's a shredding industry is that, you know, not all

0:27:19 Thomas: Of Yngwie Malmsteen that's the reason there's a shredding industry.

0:27:21 Andrew: That was, that's such an A plus reference. Love, love Yngwie. Anyway, um, allowed to destroy your papers that you create, right, and so out of that practice born the litigation hold letter, and a litigation hold later is a way of telling a company, hey, we're about to sue you, or we're considering suing you, and you may have documents that are relevant to the matters for which we're about to sue you, or we're considering suing you. And now if you destroy them, now that you're on notice about that, that would be spoliation, right? That would be a crime. It would materially adversely impact the litigation. So you have a duty to suspend your normal document destruction and retention policies and preserve anything that might be relevant to this dispute.

0:28:15 Andrew: And then the letter will set out what that dispute is. Right. And say you must preserve the following categories of documents. Right? Might notice that I began this conversation in talking about what corporations do. And that's because I would say it is irregular. I don't want to say it never happens, but it is very irregular to send a litigation hold letter to a person.

0:28:50 Thomas: A drunkard, oh yeah, to a person yeah, to, yeah it's not like she has a document retention policy? I mean, I know, I I bet Andrew does, just because, you know, Andrew is all about documents.

0:28:52 Andrew: Right because well

0:29:01 Thomas: It's this fetish. She probably has a very neat and tidy system. But for me, I don't really have any sort of retention or destruction policy. And so it's kind of weird to send this to a person.

0:29:01 Andrew: Yeah of course yeah it it is, and it's particularly weird because you can see juxtaposed in in this letter their standard language, so, so for example, I'm going to go to page two, right, and this language is a hundred percent appropriate, I've written language like this in a half dozen cases to civil defendants that my clients were about to sue, right? "Due to its format, electronic information is easily deleted, modified, or corrupted. Accordingly, you must take every reasonable step to preserve this information until this matter is resolved. This may include, but would not be limited to, an obligation to discontinue all data destruction and backup recycling policies and procedures on any and all devices within your possession, custody, or control."

0:30:01 Andrew: Your obligation to preserve documents applies to both you individually and any entities that you control. So yeah, Drunkie McDrunkerson here does not control any entities. She does not have data retention or backup recycling policies, right? Right. And you have no grounds as a lawyer to say, oh, we think you're the kind of person that would destroy documents. Right. That's even if you think she's the kind OF

0:30:01 Thomas: Well,

0:30:33 Andrew: Person that might destroy documents yet.

0:30:33 Thomas: But like, okay, let's play Dominion's advocate here. So wait, what even is the litigation like for libel or something or slander or what?

0:30:43 Andrew: Question. It is a defamation lawsuit against Sidney Powell, against Rudy Giuliani for running around and saying, you know, Dominion engaged in a secret conspiracy with Skittle to, you you know, hack the votes, right?

0:30:46 Thomas: Yeah. So... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, okay. So, let's say Dominion's advocate, let's say they're thinking maybe there's texts and emails among these conspirators to do this really dumb thing, we're putting you on notice that you can't delete those, and it would be, you know, you'd be, you'd be violating the law, or whatever you want to say, so is that, you don't find that valid, is that not something that's normally done to an individual? Hmm.

0:31:01 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah.

0:31:23 Andrew: So not only is that not typically done to an individual, it is not typically down to a party's witness. Right. Remember that this is not the person who has spearheaded and coordinated these efforts. Right? This is somebody who cooperated with Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. And I take seriously, right, like you did a good job as Dominion's advocate. If I represented Dominion, I think it is beyond appropriate to send a letter like this to Giuliani and to Powell, which they have done, and to demand retractions for the reasons we've talked about on the show, right? Like once you...

0:31:32 Thomas: Hmm.

0:31:43 Thomas: And...

0:32:08 Thomas: Please get them disbarred. Can they help with that? Can they do anything about that? God, there's just nothing you can do short of stealing retainer money gets you disbarbed. What a pointless association. I'm anti-bar association.

0:32:12 Andrew: I think we could see disciplinary action I don't, I don't I don' disagree that, I mean

0:32:25 Thomas: Unless you're listening, then I like you. Only the people listening, though.

0:32:25 Andrew: Let's get you admitted to the bar first Yeah, Yeah, um, it, it, I think that this is illustrating, um, kind of a, a contemporary, you know, that we need to revisit that for, you know, the Larry Klayman's and Sidney Powell's of the world who are out there enabling baseless conspiracy theories. That are, you know, contrary to justice and clog up the courts and all that. I agree with that 100 percent. And I think that, you Know, there probably is some some energy to to, you Know, revisit and buff up those standards. So so I agree With you. I do. Do. And you point out, by the way, the way in which a court would very likely adjudicate any sort of spoliation claims, which is tell Rudy Giuliani, don't delete stuff off your hard drive and produce all the documents. And then that covers the emails that Rudy Giuliani has sent to to Drunkie McDrunkerson here. I've even forgotten her name. It's Melissa Carone. Because, right? Melissa Carone is going to be a material witness, you can require her to show up and sit for a deposition and to bring documents with her.

0:32:48 Thomas: Yeah.

0:33:41 Andrew: That is a subpoena, deuces taken, right. So even if you haven't sued her directly and they have not and they do not indicate that they're going to, Well, they say that litigation is imminent. Litigation regarding these issues is imminent. It does not say we're going to sue you personally for defamation, and they probably won't, but I could be wrong on that. Can say, right, first set of requests for production of documents directed to Miss Carone. You can say, I want you to bring all of your emails that are between you and Rudy Giuliani, and if they are, if you claim that they are protected by attorney client privilege, you have to produce a privilege law that identifies each and every one of them. The subject matter, the recipients, the date. And have successfully litigated on issues where people have have overly broad claims of privilege. Right. And you, the first step is, I wish I could say taint team, but the first step is an in-camera inspection by the judge of the materials.

0:33:51 Thomas: Yeah.

0:34:43 Andrew: Right. So the judge will say, hey, you've listed the plaintiff's counsel has contested the privilege designation for documents 35, 79 and 206. Produce those for in- camera inspection. I'm going to take a look at it and decide whether they should be produced or whether they contain legitimate attorney-client privilege. This is done all the time. I will tell you, the way in which, as a lawyer, you discover that somebody has been spoliating evidence, right, destroying documents, is because when you ask the same question of multiple witnesses, different documents will show up on one person's privilege logger production, but not on another, Right. And you have your team of associates go through and pick out and you're like, hmm, Carone produced an email from herself to Rudy Giuliani on January 3rd or let's say on December 15th. But Rudy Giuliani did not produce that same email as under the same request. So the

0:35:27 Thomas: Yeah.

0:35:48 Thomas: So what you're saying is not to give, you advice on how to be unethical. But if you're going to spoliate, spoliat together. Is that what you're saying? You got to spoliate as a team. Yeah.

0:35:56 Andrew: Family, the family that spoliates

0:36:00 Thomas: Yeah, the conspirators who spoliated together stay together.

0:36:00 Andrew: Together, stays out of prison together. No, that's right. And so what I am saying is that a lawyer, you know, the ways in which you deal with rogue witnesses that might destroy documents, right. And if you wanted to to to highlight this person on on the litigation hold letter to Sydney Powell or to Rudy Giuliani or both, to say you are also directed to instruct all of your witnesses and anyone else under your, you control to preserve all evidence, that would have been fine. This was done equal parts PR stunt, which you can tell from the language, and equal parts as an effort to to come down And, yeah, and deterrence, right?

0:36:50 Thomas: Vindictiveness a little bit, a little revenge. Yeah? Hmm.

0:36:56 Andrew: A, oh, you poked the bear. And in this case, right, the bear is a multibillion dollar multinational corporation with a ton of resources. And bears don't like getting poked. I get that. But but I I do think like we should I mean, it rubbed me the wrong way to see folks cheerleading this letter because this was I don't want to say it's an abuse. It's not it's not inappropriate. OK, it feels it a little wrong to me. Right. It feels like.

0:36:56 Thomas: Hmm. Yeah.

0:37:30 Thomas: So it feels a little bullying maybe.

0:37:32 Andrew: Yeah. And and look, 99 times out of 100. Right, when the situation is reversed, regardless of the apportionment of fault involved. Um, I, I don't want to be on the side of, you know, big corporation using legal process to intimidate an individual and particularly an individual that you don't intend to sue. Right. An individual who is a witness to the process who may or may not be able to afford counsel on her own. Now, look, I get it. This is a super easy target. And yeah, this person is probably going to go get the full Fox News treatment. And, you know, and when that happens, I'll be with you.

You know, I mean, I've called her Drunkie McDrunkerson in this, right? It's not like I'm really, you know, stridently arguing, you know, pro-Melissa Carone here. It is that this felt a little off to me. Also thought it was a good opportunity to explain what litigation hold letters are and kind of do that sort of classic OA deep dive. Because a lot of people were like, "Well, why are they sending this letter anyway?" And the answer is, it is to preserve documents for litigation so that you may uncover them in discovery. And that in mind, when right, you go back and read this, to tell me that you think that's really what they want to do, right?

0:37:58 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

0:38:58 Thomas: No,

0:38:58 Andrew: I don't think so.

0:38:58 Thomas: I agree with you that this

0:38:59 Andrew: I

0:39:00 Thomas: Is, you know, I think we can all agree here that this is a little vindictive, a little revenge-y, a little, you're trying to spread disinformation about our company, but I don't know. I'm not sure I like vehemently disagree with you or anything, but I, I think if I worked for this company or something and I was like, okay, we got some person who's just making up stuff about conspiracies about what we do and whatever, like, all right, maybe we're not going to sue this person out of existence or something, but let's, let's let's threaten her a little bit to get her to stop spreading these lies about us. I don't know. I Don't see it as like that bad, but, uh, but see your points. I don't know.

0:39:38 Andrew: I hear you, and I don't, I, think you hear sort of where, where I've come down and to me it's, it's more about, um, are we ever going to live in a country in which norms matter again? Um, and and if we are, you know, I, that's I'm thinking about it

0:39:41 Thomas: Yeah. Hmm. But can we all agree that they should sue the pants off of, well, no, I want Rudy Giuliani's pants on, but sue thepants and

0:39:57 Andrew: Yeah, we've already seen what what happens when, yes, a hundred percent, absolutely, like

0:40:02 Thomas: Hair dye onto Rudy Giuliani? Can we agree that we send as many litigation hold letters to them as possible? Possible.

0:40:07 Andrew: Uh, they should be seeking injunctive relief requiring him to shut the hell up. Uh, they should absolutely, like, it's, it's part of, yeah, it, it, and it, was it is part of the, I view this as sort of a follow-on story to when we first talked about how, uh, Dominion was planning to bring defamation lawsuits. Like, like, yeah, that's, that's a really good way to stop people from spreading baseless conspiracy theories against you. That is, find rich and powerful people with money and sue them and take away their money if they don't stop. And everything that Dominion has done with respect to those lawsuits has been textbook, right? Like, that's why you issue the cease and desist letter. You say, hey, this strongly worded crunch wrap is more than just, you know, tasty cheese and ground beef inside, right?

0:40:16 Thomas: Get them disbarred.

0:41:03 Andrew: Like this is setting up so that you now know the truth. And if you continue to repeat falsehoods when you know the proof, we have a slam dunk case of defamation against you. And that's why, you know, we talked about it. Fox News sent Lou Dobbs on the air to debunk Lou Dobbs in a glorious way like that worked. And this is a perfect example of where, you knows, in that area, you can use the inequalities in our civil system the cause of good, right? Right. Like to be able to say, all right, stop saying things that are patently not true. Coupled with this. Right. I certainly wish that we had more robot. We've talked about this before. It's to have to be a topic of a future deep dive, but that we had more robust anti-slap laws in the 50 states. Right. You live in California that has a fantastic and robust anti anti-slap law that, you know, it's why our friends Ono, Ross, and Kerry base their show and the LLC that produces it out of California, because they get accused of libeling people all the time, of defaming them.

0:41:21 Thomas: Yeah.

0:42:20 Andrew: And their answer is almost always like, nope, we're engaged in legitimate journalistic reporting and, um, yeah, Well, but, but we saw that, right, with the the Trump lawsuit, selectively, you know, trying to sue one TV station in Wisconsin because Wisconsin doesn't have good anti-slap laws.

0:42:26 Thomas: Yeah, also they live in California, but yeah.

0:42:37 Thomas: Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah we all need this. Can we do a federal anti-SLAPP? I mean it's low on the agenda of all the things we need to get done, but is that something that should exist or no?

0:42:43 Andrew: Um, So the problem is that, one, um, of the things that's, really, I would love to see that, but I don't think we could. And and one ofthe reasons that I think we couldn't is because the most effective anti-SLAPP laws alter the state's rules of civil procedure to say, here's an early way you can seek dismissal, get the case removed before discovery, and get your money, right, get all of your attorney's fees paid. And it would be, yeah,

0:43:14 Thomas: It's interesting. That's interesting, like I take your word for that and that makes sense, but it's funny that a right that's enshrined in the First Amendment, you know, is something that like, well, a federal law to protect that wouldn't really work just based on the quirks of how this plays out. It's kind of interesting.

0:43:27 Andrew: Good. That's an awesome point. So let's put a pin in that and let's do a Slap law episode. I think

0:43:35 Thomas: Yeah, All right. Well, what a nice signature deep dive from 1P Andrew Torrez. It is nice to be back to the old OA. And I am going to go off and write some litigation hold letters to people. Is that that cool Can I just can I do that? Do I have to be a lawyer? Can I write a litigation hold letter about the bar exam that you're giving me. In fact, I think I'm going to, can I get, okay, Morgan, if you're listening, uh, I need to issue a litigation hold letter to Andrew about all his documents regarding the bar, the bar examine we're now using, and the porking of the streak and the not porking of the streak. So get back to me on that, Morgan. So shoot me an email. Thanks.

0:43:43 Andrew: Oh, man, there's so much more of this on the horizon there You go? Yeah. Yeah. You kind of do but you know, you you know, shall do it too.

0:44:14 Clip: And thank you, let's go!

0:44:15 Thomas: And now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats over at patreon.com/law. I'll start us off. Thank you to former Federal Reserve Attorney, interesting, Jacob Daniel Murphree. Sparkle Donkey Tequila, the world's best tequila in the world, SparkleDonkey.com. Rest in peace, Brandon Bernard. We must abolish the death penalty. Yeah, agreed. Next week on Lotawful Movies is the trial of the Chicago 7. I agree with the previous patron, Noctelfa Root Creeper. The Coterie, expert Salesforce implementations and custom app development. Activate digital transformation at www.thecoterie.io. Justice for Beer. Check out Budget Botanist on Fiverr for all your virtual houseplant needs. Listening for years, still can't come up with something clever.

0:45:01 Thomas: Nevin Dudas' cow, Chelsea Olsen, Wesley Glenn Brock. Becoming a patron to get five episodes a week, now to catch up on months of backlog. New book, The Greatest Gift of All, A Logical Path from Religion to Humanism by Mark McLean, out December 30th. Oh, that means it's already out now. Congrats. Eli, you have my express permission to say whatever you want about Mitch McConnell. That doesn't do Eli a lot of good. If I say. At Casa Agria is the best brewery. At Emperor's Brewery is a close second. Bradford Thomas thinks Joe looks better in a leaf jersey. Gosh, I'm so bummed about that. Really sad to lose Joe Thornton. Great Dooku Tree, a thorny tourney of torn and tawny tourniquet attorneys, each more torn and tiny than the last. Thomas Gleberg, big docket energy.

0:45:47 Thomas: Writ of Mandalorian is granted when there's no discretion, this is the way. My name is Mary Perez, and I'm a fan of both the Boston Celtics and Boston Bruins, even though I grew up in New Jersey. My sentient mass of spiders got a new job in the oil industry, please vote blue and make me lose my job. For real, buddy. Freaking Guyerson, One is first, but Two is a close second. Idea for a screenplay: Air Bud, Man's Best Amicus.

Hadron, sorry for not changing my Patreon name. 1L finals are a clown horn. 1L finals are a clown horn. Two Fabulous Lesbians. Two Fabulous Lesbians TM, your move, Fabulous Lesbian. We got a good patron battle going on here, I like it. William, Drew Collins, Bob Newhouse. Sassy Italy Tours is asking you to donate to the Rafael Sassy Memorial Fund, RafielSassyMemorialFund.org. Greg Kreimer, oh, no associate of this firm has ever pork the streak. Oh, that's great, I love that one. Biden Harris, Biden Harris 2020, now to win Georgia runoffs. Jennifer Chikowsky, doing this while drunk. Hey, Hans Royal, you're live on the air with Opening Arguments.

Simple Country Hyper Chicken. My call an old mad blind despised dying king, that Dickens, always with the compliments. A cursory evaluation of a Republican's capability indicates a distinct tactical deficiency, efficiency, say it with me. Amicus, I'm not even a tortfeasor and I'm kicking your ass. Support Secular Construction, there's no rule against faithless erectors. Angry Mac Face, sorry, Andrew. Uncle Frank is too far gone, if something should go wrong, let's not get the law involved. One Hand Washes the Other, Center of Black Trans Sex Workers. The Books, the Burn Podcast, reviewing fictional depictions of trauma since 2019.

0:47:37 Thomas: Hey, you up? I just got a writ of habeas corpus because I, I need that body.

0:47:44 Thomas: Some good ones today. The one, the only, they who shall never be dethroned, Crazy Corgi. And that's two different patrons, by the way. So nice, nice teamwork there. If everyone listened at speed 1.3, they might understand long legal explanations without exceeding their attention span. Maybe. Uzi Rudy's Legal Ruse movie was a doozy. Yeah. Changed my Patreon name so that I don't jump every time you read it. Murray Gregerson. This is taking too long. I'm going to skip a few. I moved for a bad court thingy. I became a patron because this is the best podcast ever. Aw, thank you. Congratulations to the NFC West champion Seattle Seahawks. Yeah, that's a good team. Jordan Jai Jessamine in Illinois. We pronounce it Illinois. Move, Mitch. Get out the way.

0:48:30 Thomas: Get out of way, Mitch, get out of way. Dash Infinity, Dash Infinity. Rejoining top tier next week. Expect a joke about an adjacent patron name. Nice. Clever Monkey Dictaporker. Brent meddling Jake donate to Georgia runoff or right said Fred will come back we did we did Christopher Brown Philly live show 2022 I bring the scotch and the cheesesteaks Loffelcopter says Andrew and Thomas from the bottom of my heart thank you for everything you guys do the wheels of justice turn faster than the speed I changed my Patreon name hello my name is Porky McPorky Shenshire with a leg for an arm and an arm for a leg okay there's a goat why is there a goat Andrew Seidel's butt What is into buttress stuff? Zirkle, Robert M, Odin the Law Dog, Josh Hoku, Stormy Decisus, Pauly Hernandez.

0:49:18 Thomas: Andrew's real favorite book is Thatcher and the Rye, The Life and Times of the UK's Iron Lady. Check out The Ring Runner and Brigador on Steam, two slightly mad indie labors of love that do not deserve their obscurity. K-Tel Presents, the 1460 best bittersweet yodel ballads. Emily, Rainbow Spence, and Not That Chris Wallace. Your turn, Andrew.

0:49:41 Andrew: All right. Well, thank you to Alfred Wallace. Give to Modest Needs, that, or give to modest needs that org. It's OK, Thomas, I got it wrong too. Jason Copas. Hot Spear suggests Biden pardon and a nonviolent drug offender every day until Republicans agree to limit president's pardoning power. Yeah, those are both great ideas. 2020 can bite my shiny metal ass. I'm even going to say ass here. Optimism is overrated. 8 equals equals equals D and that is every syllable of that is written out. I love that. F yeah, footnote 5. The true Conrad Michaels, Nate Drex, Darth Mandy Pants, what look like ASCII boobs, which I'm totally down for. No idea what What motion in lemonade is, but it sounds delicious. 13th century Saxony gravel truck lawyer. I am the bad things that happen in Philadelphia. Stay gritty. Diogenes the Cynic was right. Jennifer Kratch. That again. Geez, Geez, who'd want to pork our streak, eh, you tortfeasor?

0:49:48 Thomas: Thank you.

0:50:36 Andrew: Unionize, Brooklyn friends. Puddles the Clowns, sing sad yodel songs, that just makes me laugh. Civilpoliticsradio.com, Fridays at 7 p.m. Eastern on Valley Free Radio. Good job on the voting for the Joe Biden, please continue with the hand-washing. Steven Balticate, Sandoval, John Bildernbeck, I say everything twice, warning Yasserian about extra white space, nice. Philip Kizer, Andrea the Arbitrary and Capricious, can I even get back to criticizing religious influence on our democracy yet, yes you can, by Dawn 2020, I hope you worked your ass off for the Georgia Senate race. That I'm Bump Abscion Pain Strumpet Trambolus, thank God she finally changed her stupid stupid Patreon name.

Thomas's Load-Bearing Cats, Jonathan Trump wanted Four Seasons, got Double Tree, I had to stand up and Google Double Tree, but now I can, now I get it and can sit back down, sitting down because, like Texas, I lack standing, that's excellent coordination there. You three, Milo Means on Esquire, Halfling Bard and Attorney at Law, stop, ask a question, a karaoke legend would, to ask, join your labor union, together we bargain, alone we beg. Hold your toot, don't pollute. Our doula borrowed some money because she's going through a midwife crisis.

James K. Terese Chan, doctorate night, homeschooling our kids during the day, pretty sure my wife's a superhero. Chad T. Anonymous, Biden should name everyone Trump fires between the election and inauguration to his transition team. WordOrigins.org, your source for legal terms from 13th century Saxony. In the end, it was more like Iran-Contra than Watergate. RIP Notorious RBG. Video Killed the Patreon Pun. Joe Booze Rum, your Yodel Mountain Fantasy Football League champions. Yeah, on a technicality, I mean, if, if I hadn't dropped out, uh, Joe wouldn't have made the playoffs, uh, because I had five players out with COVID on, like,

0:51:40 Thomas: Thank

0:52:26 Andrew: Week 13, um, that was, and I lost by like a point and a half, yeah, it's that, I'm getting Sidney Powell on that case right away. Anyway, they said I could be anything, so I became Two Fabulous Lesbians. Derek, Trump pardoned three turkeys this week. This is a month old, but congrats. Corrin Cobb and Michael Flynn. Terrified will be pecked to death by lame ducks. A string of unpronounceable characters. We're on to the dork dot com. I still haven't gone there yet. Have you? Anyway, the coronavirus apocalypse is making me too depressed to think of anything clever this week, Adam Costa, Jay Alden, Malika Chandler, Tricicular Manslaughter, Buttercup's Legal Services. Welcome back. Soggy Pants, Matthew Vernon. I just had COVID and losing the Seattle live show is still the worst part of 2020. Covidius Albion, adopt a homeless pet and oppose declawing and ear docking. Day Jury Belly at Packus at last, baby. Heather L., Jeremiah's Fancy Microwave Emporium, Ian and Allie, Danny Rosari, Eli Bosnick, David in Brooklyn, Teresa Gomez.

0:52:40 Thomas: You

0:53:27 Andrew: Wow. No, no name from Teresa Gomez. Sam Donnell Mitchell. No commute. So behind on podcasts. Trump pardoned Manafort for my birthday. Can I return it? Natasha Crunchwrap wants you to support the Justice Policy Institute. I agree with that 100 percent. Sam Buck. And of course, our all time great. He who shall never be dethroned, but keep trying anyway. Conrad Michaels.

0:53:49 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:53:55 Thomas: All right, it is time for T3BE. Not ever to pork the streak because Andrew's cheating somehow and I'm gonna get my hands on all the documents. Uh, okay, T3b time, have I porked streak? Let's find out. Yay.

0:54:09 Andrew: Yeah, so this was a factory that began making a new type of sturdier plastic. Once they started producing the plastic, lots of people in town started getting sick and was complaining about the effluent that was being released in gaseous form in the neighborhood. Uh, and then, um, a person, a citizen of the town sued the factory for public nuisance. The question was, will they recover? And, you immediately eliminated the no answers, uh, which I want to tell you, really good elimination, um, that uh, the, the so

0:54:46 Thomas: No. I have no hope anymore. Cool, so which is yeah, so I didn't get it wrong that way.

0:54:54 Andrew: Yeah, so absolutely, this is a case of public nuisance, um, the question is what's the justification, um, and I, I will not hold you in suspense, I, I was actually typing up, The Thomas has porked the streak, despite your pessimism, because the analysis you gave as to why B was the correct answer was 100 percent correct. And then you were just like, ah, F it, I'm going to pick A at the last minute. It was, I was so sad for you. It's B, in case you haven't figured that out. And the reasoning is that A is if the use or enjoyment of the citizen's property has been unreasonably interfered with, that's the standard for a private nuisance. But I thought perhaps you would write over it, lied over that, because the harm that the citizen is complaining about here is not, know, use or enjoyment of his property, but is I'm sick. Right. I'm breathing these toxic pollutants. Right.

0:55:40 Thomas: Public nuisance. Yeah.

0:55:56 Andrew: Right. And so

0:55:53 Thomas: Yeah, well, I would assume that's part of, like, if my property includes my house, that I can't really use it if I'm breathing in toxic fumes, but, uh, okay, so what's the part where it has to be unique to those suffered by the rest of the town?

0:56:02 Andrew: You could you could construct that. But but in any event, that that is the test for whether somebody can bring a private nuisance claim. Right. So a public nuisance. Right. Is when the defendant engages in an activity that unreasonably interferes with the health, safety or morals of a community. And yes, that dates back to 13th century Saxony. But here's the thing. Ordinarily, right, it's inherent in the word public. And you even said this while you were working through it. So ordinarily, a public nuisance claim is brought by the municipality. Right. It says, right. You came in here with your whorehouse. You unreasonably interfered with the morals of our community. These are real cases, by the way. And so we want you to we want to evict you and confiscate the whore house. Um, then

0:56:28 Thomas: Okay, yeah, but if I also Got gonorrhea, then I have suffered in a damage or injury unique to the rest best of the kind my

0:57:02 Andrew: That is, that is a hundred percent correct. And again, real case, right? So in other words, not, not yours, but in other words, courts will ask as a standing issue, why is Thomas Smith bringing this lawsuit and not the town of, you know, no, no whore houses, California. And the answer to that is if you have suffered damages or harm that are unique to those in the rest of the community, then you get to bring the public nuisance lawsuit. And that was the formulation in B. That's why it's B. I thought you were right there. There,

0:57:10 Thomas: No sorry not my gonorrhea but don't tell the shh yeah yeah yeah

0:57:45 Andrew: Um, yeah

0:57:45 Thomas: It was cool, I mean, again, those were all thoughts I had, but I'm the part I don't, I'm not a lawyer, so I can think like, well, this might be it, but there's nothing magically in my brain that says, yep, you've arrived at the right conclusion, stop there. So, yeah, I, because I'm a lawyer, I

0:57:59 Andrew: And the only thing I would say is when you, when you decide on an answer like, maybe go back and go, what is the relationship between this answer, if you know, if it's a, if it's a torts question, right, like between this answer and the and the wrong that was suffered here, right, or if it's a constitutional law violation, like just look for that tightness of fit, because here I think if you'd gone the other way, right, if you'd started with A and you'd have been like, well, that, that seems like it's all the elements. And then at the end, you'd have been like, oh, but wait a minute. Like, this isn't about using your property. This is about getting sick. So, OK, then it makes sense.

0:58:33 Thomas: Still don't I still don't see the difference between those two things. So yeah, that would be the problem. How, how is that not about using your property if you're getting sick on your property? Like, so I guess legally speaking, that just means someone has to be doing something else that doesn't involve your health or something.

0:58:35 Andrew: Yeah. So it's It's interesting that that that seems to be a kind of property injury to you because law basically had to arrive at that status, sort of a common law over multiple centuries. Right. So, for Example, we have the doctrine of constructive eviction. Right, so if your landlord fails to maintain the heat during the winter and it's 40 degrees Fahrenheit in your, you can say like, well, effectively you've kicked me out of of my property because so

0:59:03 Thomas: Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I picture if there's a cloud of toxic smoke over my, and I don't know if this person lives on a farm or, you know, whatever, Like if there's a cloud of toxic gas over my, the, the area that I own, which I would think of as property, that seems like you're interfering with using my property, but I guess, so that's not right.

0:59:37 Andrew: So but again, but now, but now, think. Think about, let's, let's calibrate it downward. Right. Let's say it becomes a constructive, analogous to constructive eviction. It becomes a property injury if you, you can't live in the house anymore because it's so severe. But like think about the wildfires in California that, you knows, that you suffered last year, earlier this year. Right? Right. Where you're like, OK, not leaving my house because it's even worse outside. But like it's pretty bad inside.

0:59:52 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

1:00:06 Andrew: Right. So, yeah, no, I know. Right? So in other words, I don't think you would want it to be tied to a use of the property standard. Right. Because I could come back and say, oh, are you still able to live at your house? All right, then fine. What do you what are complaining about? I think you want it to be tied to a specific injury to health because there you can say, like, right, but I'm coughing all the time, right? Like, I'm more miserable. I'm still using my property in the same way, but a more miserable while I'm doing it.

1:00:06 Thomas: It was. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the language is "unreasonably interfered with," you know, it seems like "interfered with" isn't like a language of, you know, it's made it impossible for you to even occupy your house. Else it does interfered with sound like something. So, yeah, I, I guess what I'm saying is like I get the to you, that's that's obvious, but I, I don't, I don't, I'm, and maybe you know we're two in a row here where it's like, or two or more, where I'm close, but if there's something I knew, I would have been able to get it, I, yeah, I don't know, I don't, I'm not a lawyer, so it's hard.

1:01:02 Andrew: Well, I'm I I'm proud of the way that you're working through the questions.

1:01:05 Thomas: Well. I like that you will always believe in me even though I will never pork the streak and you, you found a test to F with me and expect a hold letter from my attorney, Morgan.

1:01:16 Andrew: I do. OK.

1:01:20 Clip: Wrong! Hide my head, I wanna drown my sorrow. No tomorrow, no tomorrow. You lose!

1:01:34 Thomas: All Right, Andrew, hop in the time machine and tell us who porked my streak without me.

1:01:40 Andrew: Well, Thomas, this week's winner is Emmett Witkowski Eldred on Twitter, who writes, I was so excited that SeriousPod would pork the streak in T3BE, but he veered off to A at the last second. It's B, a private individual can only recover for public nuisance if she suffers from a particularized injury. Answer A was the standard for private nuisance. Exactly right. Great little graphic to go with it. Everyone give Emmett a follow on Twitter. You can follow them at at E-M-M E-T-T E-L-D-R-E-D at Emmett Eldred. And congratulations on being this week's winner.

1:02:17 Thomas: So much for listening, everyone. And I will go back to constant heart attacks about the Georgia elections and hopefully I can recover in time for Friday's show.

1:02:26 Clip: I move for a bad court thingy. You mean a mistrial? Yeah, that's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.

1:02:59 Clip: www.openargs.com. Be sure to join the Facebook group at facebook.com/groups/Yodel Mountain and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media LLC, all rights reserved. It is produced with the assistance of transcriptionist Heather Leverage, production assistant Ashley Smith, and additional contributions from Morgan Stringer and Debra 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 Arguments 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.