OA510: Liberty University Punished Women Who Reported Sexual Assaults, According to Complaint

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 510. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How are doing?

0:01:23 Andrew: I am fantastic. Well, no, you know what? I think you asking me how I'm doing is a violation of my HIPAA rights, so I'm not going to answer.

0:01:30 Thomas: It is a medical question. Marjorie Taylor Greene. And it's more sinister than that because she's dodging a vaccination question because she is obviously vaccinated and expecting other people to go die in her ideological game, I guess. And so in order to avoid saying, well, yes, I'm vaccinated, but all you plebs shouldn't be because of whatever nonsense Trump crap. She's just doing this? She's saying, oh, that's a violation of my HIPAA rights for you to ask me if I'm vaccinated.

0:02:00 Thomas: Hey, listener Thomas asks, Andrew, is that a violation of HIPAA rights to ask?

0:01:41 Andrew: Right. Yeah. Yeah, no. Of course Not. That's why I'm making fun. Fun event in my yeah. Glad, depending

0:02:04 Thomas: Oh, okay. I'm just making absolutely sure that everybody understands. Yeah, was a good joke anyway. Uh, we've got so much going on. I'm gonna wave my HIPAA rights to tell you I'm feeling great about this episode. It's gonna be a lot, it's a lot, and also actually I'm feeling great about next Tuesday's episode. We're, sorry, this Tuesday's episode, uh, depending on, on the pedantics. Yeah uh This Thursday's episode is critical race theory part three, but with a, I was gonna say fun, fun twist, but, uh, fun. If you like Andrew having had to listen to horrible content, so, and that we don't have to, and then like, tell us what it, what it was.

0:02:29 Andrew: On if you're Noah

0:02:47 Thomas: Right. Fun for me.

0:02:47 Andrew: Yeah fun, fun, if you hate me as

0:02:49 Thomas: Yeah.

0:02:49 Andrew: A person, yeah.

0:02:51 Thomas: I'm having a lot of fun.

0:02:53 Andrew: No, uh, look, we're gonna go through, um, I, you know, we talked about this a little bit on movies, which, by the way, yeah, I mean, that is out now. We did the Kraken sanctions hearing, uh, you have to be a two dollar patron for that, right, so you know people sometimes ask. Look, but if, uh, you've ever thought about it, that now's pretty good time, we go through the six hour Kraken sanctions here and, uh, it's really good and it's also pretty funny, I think.

0:03:00 Thomas: Ooh. Yeah, yeah.

0:03:18 Andrew: I

0:03:18 Thomas: We've gotten a rave reviews and it's one of those ones. I said this back during the Alex Jones deposition too, where it's like, like it's just one of those a Law'd Awful Movies is, or a lot of great sanctions is where you just, you learn a ton about the law as well at the same time, which is, I mean, that's usually true, but this one was particularly in depth. So definitely check it out. It'll really maybe restore some of your faith in the law that you've probably lost the last last four or five years to see really smart, effective lawyers with, you know, a modicum of ethical values, uh, smacking down lawyers with absolutely zero ethical values of any kind. So it's, uh. It's a lot of fun.

0:03:59 Andrew: I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't. So in the beginning of that, we talk a little bit about really productive conversation that I had on Facebook. So I wanted to to continue because, you... there's a subtle, right. Like we gave you the introduction to what critical race theory actually is. And now the Christopher Ruffos of this world are not just sitting back, they still have their misrepresentations, but they have a strategy if you have been informed. And so they have a response to that argument. It's horrible and disingenuous and bad as it gets. But we want you to be prepared on that. So we're going to talk about what the actual critical race theory bills that have been passed in 10 different states, what they actually do, and show you why this public relations war that they're waging is misleading and awful. And I think you'll enjoy it.

0:04:52 Thomas: I just see a giant in all caps here. Another announcement. Stop messaging us about telegram.

0:04:59 Andrew: Look, this isn't, Andrew was wrong, I will own up to it, off the cuff in talking about the potential sanctions against Linwood, I mentioned that Linwood and Sidney Powell used an app called Telegram. And I said, oh, what the hell that, is that probably some like Parlor kind of right wing horrible thing. And approximately all of you have written in to say, no, it's not an inherently right wing thing. OK, sorry, I shouldn't have made an off the cuff remark. I thought it was kind of funny. But, but as we know, I'm not the humor on the show, I'm the law on the show. My responsibility to have figured out what Telegram is, and it's an encrypted message app kind of thing, and, um, you do not have to be a right-wing monster to use it, although I will point out, uh, Sydney Powell does use it, right, like I mean, if I found out SydNEY Powell was using my brand of toothbrush, I would switch toothbrushes, right, that's all that's ALL I'm saying, yeah.

0:05:46 Thomas: Yeah. Many right-wing monsters. It's one of those right-wing toothbrushes. Yeah

0:05:56 Andrew: So uh, Telegram's a toothbrush. If you use it, you don't have to feel bad. I'm sorry if, uh, I offhandedly

0:06:01 Thomas: Yeah, well, I got thrown off. I swear you or something in the docu and the filing said they had followers on Telegram, and so that I think that led us both down To the, like, oh, it's one of those right-wind Twitters that people try to make all the time. I don't know how you have followers on a encrypted messaging app, maybe you can't, maybe it's like, who knows. Anyway, that threw me off, so sorry about that. I was thinking of a different thing, probably Parlor.

0:06:02 Andrew: Yeah I hadn't figured that one out yet, yeah.

0:06:24 Andrew: I was, that's, that's definitely what I, I was thinking of, and I, and I was wrong, so I'm happy to hone up to being wrong. Not happy, but

0:06:30 Thomas: Wrong so send us only two to three more emails a piece, and then for each of you, just so Andrew has to read them. No, don't, really? Oh,

0:06:36 Andrew: Yeah yeah it's excellent. When people, like people go through the back files too and are like, I was just listening to episode 138, and you know, so for the rest of my life, I will get updates about, uh, about Telegram. I'm sorry, it's wrong. You know, you're right, and I'm wrong, okay.

0:06:46 Thomas: I know. Yeah it's fine, all Right, let's get to our

0:06:56 Andrew: Let's Do it.

0:06:56 Thomas: Show, okay.

0:06:58 Clip: Down the law, down the law.

0:07:02 Andrew: Oh,

0:07:02 Thomas: Update on the Texas Democrats, yeah.

0:07:05 Andrew: I love, one of the things I love about doing this show is we get emails and we get messages, so, um, This is Uh, this first person, so I have two bits of listener feedback on the Texas walkout, from people who are at ground zero, right. So this first person is, I want to to anonymize, they've requested to share the information, but for me to anonymise them. So I will not confirm or deny if this person is a member of the Texas legislature. I will say they are either a member or an employee. And so this was about the Article 10 that we kind of glossed over. And this person says, OK, a couple of things to know about the, the Texas legislature. Number one, I said they met five months out of the year. They actually meet five months every other year.

0:07:12 Thomas: About Telegram? We already covered that, oh, no, it's wow

0:08:02 Andrew: So, yeah. So they meet.

0:08:02 Thomas: So I thought I had heard they were like a specifically, and I thought there was a certain amount element of like here, in conservative Texans, we don't need our government to ever do anything, I thought that I'd picked up that vibe from the, that the whole story, wow.

0:08:04 Andrew: Yep. Yeah. I think that's, I think you were correct to pick up on that vibe. I certainly did not see the every other, other year, so, uh, appreciate that on the correction

0:08:24 Thomas: How do you, I want to get that job, can we, new recording schedule, Andrew, every other year? We do, yeah. They

0:08:25 Andrew: Yeah uh this is the first legislative year for the current parliamentarian, so you, you had asked me the question about the parliamentarians, and this person says as far as I can tell, they seem fairly independent, going yeah

0:08:42 Thomas: Must, otherwise, otherwise I feel like they already would have cheated, you know, like this would be over already.

0:08:43 Andrew: Yeah uh Going, so far as to rule against Republican legislation and amendments when challenged on points of order during the regular session. This killed a number of objectively terrible Republican bills. Next, the Article 10 appropriations for the legislature issue is actually kind of interesting. The reason this is part of the special session agenda is that the governor line item vetoed Article 10 in response to the Democratic walkout during the irregular session. So before fleeing to prevent a quorum in the special section, the Democrats walked out near the end in May, as we were sort of hitting the deadline of introducing new terrible bills. And Governor Greg Abbott, in response, line item vetoed, right, struck out Article 10 from the budget.

0:09:32 Andrew: This cuts funding to a bunch of agencies and was done despite the legislature funding being mandated in the Texas Constitution. So, in other words, it said, oh, yeah, oh. You're going to walk out on us? Then fine. We're going take a number of legislative agencies, right? Right. And we're going to defund them. Do they have anything to do with this? No. But but this is our retaliation for you walking out.

0:09:54 Thomas: Well and it sounds like it's unconstitutional right

0:09:56 Andrew: Yeah, it. Yeah, absolutely.

0:09:56 Thomas: So We're just, you're doing a thing that, like, you know, is hardball, but not unconstitional, we're gonna violate the constitution, I guess.

0:10:05 Andrew: Correct. And that is going to come due as of September one. But if nothing changes, the expected effect is that members of the legislature will get paid, but staffers will not. Yeah. Now, next. And again, know, keeping in mind this person that who I will say has has stayed behind in Texas. They did literally lock us in this week. Remember, we asked, you Know, I read the the provision and I said, you know, that you you call for it and they locked the door. They did Did literally lock us in this week. I had to knock to be let out by the sergeant at arms. Members get hall passes from the speaker in order to leave the chamber. So, you know, just like being back in third grade, you have to get a special hall pass in order to leave. And then they note, fun fact, the Texas Capitol building is exempt from fire code restrictions. Right.

0:10:05 Thomas: Right, oh, right yeah yeah uh yeah

0:10:57 Andrew: Right. Because, you can't lock people, right. We had that, that happened in California with Great White, like people were, people were locked into the nightclub and set on fire. So, um, yeah, so exempt from the fire code. Sergeant, we talked about the sergean at arms, and the question was, you, sergeant at arms, you know, are they gonna go out and and do the Tommy Lee Jones thing yeah By the way, um, I I think somebody interpreted what I said as saying the fugitive was based in Texas. Um, if I did that, was an error, uh, the the uh, the Original, yeah,

0:11:15 Thomas: Are they gonna fugitive it yeah I Was pretty Sure you did say that while Where, Andrew? Was wronging

0:11:30 Andrew: Well, then I, that's I'm Wrong on That too, the original Fugitive said in Indiana, so, but Tommy Lee Jones just You Know, Texans march, Texan marshal, to me, anyway.

0:11:32 Thomas: Yeah, Oh, That's A weird Setting, yeah True.

0:11:40 Andrew: Um, the Sergeant at arms is a super nice guy and is universally liked. It's his first session in that position, that that's a real Tough, it's my first Day

0:11:40 Thomas: Oh, Man now We're Doing rookie Yeah, I'm gonna say rookie cop, you. And we got all these House members, you know, gonna be taking advantage of the rookie cop, running around, you now, making them look foolish while everybody's trying to catch them.

0:11:50 Andrew: Yeah, Next, we've spent two to three hours a day in the chamber. Members kind of mill around, occasionally having a scrum in the member lounge. I don't think that's meant in the rugby sense, um, Uh, where, where Republicans, quote, presumably plot evil stuff, end of quote. I don't like that. Then the House stands at ease until the following day. It's expected we will be doing this, uh, tomorrow, Saturday. That was this was sent on a Friday. And, uh, the body cannot stand at ease for more than 48 hours, which, you know, is just the way I want to spend my weekend. Um, next.

0:12:11 Thomas: Jeez.

0:12:34 Thomas: They should start carving the big tally marks into the wall.

0:12:35 Andrew: Yeah, I agree. Yesterday the Republicans sang the national anthem in the chamber for no discernible reason. I don't think they realized the microphones were off. I had to share that bit. I'm sorry. That was fantastic. As I'm sure you know now, Abbott has said he will arrest any of the Democrats if they set foot back in Texas. That's a good look. And then, last point on this before we get to a tiny, tiny bit more on the Article 10, a dynamic that I think is worth mentioning is that House Speaker Phelan needs the Democrats in order to remain speaker. This is his first session as speaker. He does not have unanimous Republican support. He was the compromise choice after previous Speaker Bonin was caught in a secret recording plotting against fellow Republicans. So, really interesting insider stuff.

0:13:26 Thomas: Yeah, this is Game of Thrones over here.

0:13:28 Andrew: Yep. And then another another person in connection with the Texas state State Legislature, I can say that this person, because there are thousands of these, is an employee of one of the Texas legislative agencies that is currently defunded by Abbott as of September 1st due to the veto of Article 10 in retaliation for the initial walkout, quote, even though we have literally nothing to do with the process. End of quote. Then this person notes, as it stands right now with the budget vetoed and the legislature not meeting since the Dems are in D.C., funding for 2,100 legislative jobs and staff will run out on September 1st, the start of the next fiscal year. This is an emergency and was totally done to use us as hostages and prevent the Democrats from walking out. This makes them leaving even more hardball and what Abbott did even worse.

0:14:14 Andrew: That includes everyone from the individual members, staff to the people and staff that write the bills. Specific agencies include the Legislative Budget Board, the Texas Legislative Council, the Texas Sunset Commission and the Texas State Auditor's Office and a few more. Sorry for all the text, but I wanted to communicate the situation and how much worse it is. Yeah. So, look, we are going to see the Republicans saying, oh, well, you know, if the Democrat I don't know why I just had Mitch McConnell become the Texas legislature, but

0:14:39 Thomas: I think you said Bitch McConnell, which I love.

0:14:41 Andrew: I think I said Mitch, but that's fine. Maybe I swallowed hard on that. Anyway, I was slipping into Mitch McConnell for evil Republican voice. But in any event, you will see stories as we get closer to September that say, you know, well, if the Democrats don't come back, then, you they're going to be responsible for firing, you Know, and making Sure that all these employees don't get paid. No, no, they aren't. And and we appreciate the, the inside view based on that. So, had to share that with the listeners. I thought all that was incredibly fascinating, I

0:15:01 Thomas: Yeah, that is. I love those emails as well. It's fun when we have people on the ground floor. Sorry that that's not a lot of fun being locked in with a bunch of old gassy. I'm just adding that, but it was implied in the email.

0:15:23 Andrew: Presume. Yeah.

0:15:27 Thomas: Yeah, old gassied lawmakers.

0:15:30 Andrew: Well, that was a delightful section. Thomas, are you ready to head to something, um, less delightful

0:15:33 Thomas: Yeah, I was just going to say this is. Brace yourselves everybody It's time to talk about our main segment Which is how terrible Liberty University is Yeah

0:15:35 Andrew: Yeah, yep.

0:15:45 Andrew: Um, I want to say this right now, uh, there is no way to discuss this lawsuit suit without discussing sexual assault and rape on the Liberty University campus. If you're a show listener, you know how respectfully we try and approach, uh, those subjects. For our listeners, we know we have listeners who are survivors of, of rape and sexual assault. Um, we're gonna have to talk about it, and, uh, and if that's not something you're, um, prepared, uh, or want to listen to right now, then you skip this section. With that in mind, first, a, let me cut to the bottom line. This is a plausible, meritorious lawsuit against Liberty University. I'm going to walk you through the OA method of, of reading a complaint backwards.

0:16:34 Andrew: The university has already said, we take this seriously. We're going to respond. We're gonna look, you they've already tried to do there, you know, some of these accusations are more than 20 years old, kind of backstep but but they have not mounted the kind of full court press that you would expect. If they thought they could get away with that, right, they're like, bringing in the Alliance defending freedom to say, you This is just secular society. It is.

0:17:02 Andrew: And again, it's a complaint. Right. So, you know, we need to say that. But a complaint that is and should trouble liberty and get them to take it seriously. A couple of things from from the press reporting that you need to know about. A lot of outlets are describing this as a class action. It It is not a class action. It is a civil suit on behalf of 12 unnamed plaintiffs who are are listed as Jane Doe's. It is about the Liberty Way, which is the honor code at Liberty University. And Liberty University, in classic has taken down the first link to its honor code on Google and put it behind a paywall. And I will actually include that link in the show notes that, you know, that their their first step here was to make sure, you know,

0:17:01 Thomas: That's

0:17:47 Andrew: To try and make sure that snoops like me could not actually figure out what their honor code is, because, you know, they're not more important than.

0:17:55 Thomas: A sign of a good honor code

0:17:56 Andrew: Right. Yeah, it's a secret. You have to have a student ID to log in and find it, different but but components of it are still online. You can get it through the Wayback Machine and it's attached as Exhibit A to the complaint. So, you know, nice try, Liberty, but it's not going to stop us from talking about it. By the way, it's I think it's it's crucial to understanding the lawsuit. Let me talk a little bit about Liberty Way. This Right. Is like I don't know if when if you took your driver's exam, my son, Alex, is about to take his driver's test. So I guess this is on my mind.

But if if you were state a DMV had kind of the same system as mine, which was basically like you got a number of points for stuff you did wrong on the course. And then a couple of infractions like jumping the curb or knocking over a cone were were in Maryland. Those were 16 point infractations. And that got you, you know, an immediate fail. Right. Right. So otherwise you could basically you could get up to 15 points taken off as. So and Liberty University's honor code is like that.

0:18:06 Thomas: Only

0:18:54 Andrew: OK, it has a bunch of things that it describes as infractions. And then you get a bunch of different points taken off you. And when you get to 30 points, you get suspended. OK. And if you read and I encourage you to do so, like I said, it's attached to the complaint. It will be linked in the show notes. If you read this honor code, some of it will strike you as, okay, stuff a university might do, even a normal university, one that's not a cargo cult university masquerading as a school that is really just Christian indoctrination. So things like, oh, if you're late for, well, I can't even give this one.

It's not even late to class, right? If you're late to convocation or to curfew, again, real universities do not have curfews and convocations, but whatever. That's a one-point violation, right? If you fail to respond to a student affairs official call slip within 48 hours, that's a four-point violation, along with disturbances during convocation, violation of the school dress code, again, pretty good sign you're not at a real university. But in any event, curfew violation, improper sign out, inappropriate personal contact that is, you know, hugging somebody in public. So you get four points for that plus a $10 fine. You

0:19:40 Thomas: If $10

0:20:16 Andrew: Get six points, six points for use of e-cigarettes or vaping on on campus, possession or use of tobacco, or any minor violation of the statement on personal and community respect, such as disrespect to faculty, staff, or fellow students, noise disturbance while on the hall, conduct that disrupts community or damages property, or minor use of profane language. Six-point violation.

0:20:17 Thomas: Fine Huh Holy Holy, so I can only say, gosh, frigging dang it, like five times and then I'm expelled?

0:20:44 Andrew: Yeah. You can't even say that. That. Is it, uh, I will point out my freshman philosophy class, when it was covering a case called Cohen versus California, um, the professor, uh, philosophy professor, um, have violated this literally at our first class on this, because, because Cohen versus California was about a who wore a jacket, and on the back it said F the draft. Right. Except it didn't say F. It said the word, professor.

0:21:13 Thomas: Frig.

0:21:14 Andrew: Yeah. And the professor said that word. And it's like, now, imagine if instead of wearing a jacket that said F, the draft, he had a little tape player and it walked around and it just played F the Draft, F the Draught, F, The Draft. And so I'm just picturing, right, like this is like Demolition Man, right? We got you got five of these. That would be 30 points. And that professor would be kicked off of campus. Like you, you, you cannot teach a seminal case Cohen versus California without minor use of profane language.

0:21:45 Thomas: What if you get a train parrot to sit on your shoulder and say, F the draft?

0:21:47 Andrew: Yeah. That would, that would be amazing. Oh, so good. All right.

0:21:52 Thomas: Rah, F The Draft.

0:21:55 Andrew: Really good impersonation of a parent. A 12 point violation for deception, any minor violation on the statement of sexuality in relationships, such as visiting alone with the opposite sex at an off campus residence, entering the residence hallway of an on campus apartment of the opposite sex, or allowing the same, visiting any dwelling or residence with a member of the opposite sex in, quote, "inappropriate circumstances," so

0:21:57 Thomas: Yeah.

0:22:22 Thomas: I would ask who the opposite sex is if you're non-binary, but I realize they probably just don't even let non-binary people exist.

0:22:23 Andrew: Yeah, It's Liberty University. Right, yeah, so that's a 12 point defense. Yeah.

0:22:29 Thomas: Yeah. Extremely binary? What would the opposite? I don't know. I'm just trying to.

0:22:33 Andrew: Right, 18 point violations, okay, so this is more right than halfway to suspension, include the kinds of, and this is, these are the kinds of things that that a real university would take seriously. Academic misconduct, including dishonesty, plagiarism or falsification, commission or conviction of a criminal misdemeanor, falsification of information on an official document, failure to properly identify oneself. Self. That's a little Orwellian and weird, but intentional participation in a social gathering where alcohol is served, e.g. party, bar or nightclub club or illegal drugs are used. Obscene, profane or abusive language or behavior. And then violation of the entertainment guidelines. What

0:22:46 Thomas: Cheating, Yeah. Huh.

0:23:01 Thomas: Oh, God.

0:23:17 Andrew: Are the entertainment guidelines? This used to be the straight line of you You can't watch an R-rated movie. That is still the case. That is still the case. It is an 18-point violation to watch an R-related movie. Yeah.

0:23:28 Thomas: So, Is this a preschool or being at home or something, or you're, you're visiting friends or whatever, and you're 20, and then they're like, hey, let's watch, uh, Terminator 2, like, I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to leave, I can't, I can't watch it

0:23:42 Andrew: You are required to self-report to the university, and it is an 18-point violation if you watch Terminator 2 with your friends at at home on Christmas. I am not, I wish I were making this up, and can we please put to bed the idea that that

0:23:55 Thomas: Was the first was Die Hard rated R. I can't remember, remember you

0:23:57 Andrew: Uh Yes, the first Die Hard over Christmas at home with your family you may not It has yippee kaye MFR come on, you know that's that just explaining why you watched it would then get you another 12 point violation, so that would be, you'd be suspended right there, um, and and I've said r R-rated movies. But remember, they've amended the code because now Hollywood is allowing some of that conduct in PG-13 movies. So, quote, Liberty University maintains a conservative standard in its approach to the arts and entertainment. Media and entertainment that is inconsistent with Liberty's standards and traditions, i.e. lewd lyrics, anti-Christian message, sexual content, nudity, pornography, et cetera, are not permitted on or off campus. So yes, if you watch a PG-13 movie in which, say, a comely young actor decides to go topless, that is the equivalent of plagiarizing a paper at Liberty University.

0:24:00 Thomas: Can't watch Die Hard over Christmas. Oh, my God, it's so bad of course wow

0:25:04 Andrew: Hey everybody, this is an ad for Blue Blocks. So, y'all know how much I love reading 800-page Supreme Court decisions and breaking them down for you on the show, but let's be realistic, what that means is I'm sitting at my computer for sometimes 16 to 20 hours a day. And, like, I get eye strain, I got headaches, it sucks. So you may have seen blue light glasses. These can be prescription if you're like me and you need prescription glasses. Or they can be clear lenses. Right. And basically what it does is filters out the blue light. Now, there are a bunch of knockoff, super cheap products. I got to tell you, I really, really, I wear, I use, I like the Blue Blocks, blue light computer glasses.

Glasses, number one, they match my prescription, it was super easy and straightforward, number two, like I think they look pretty good, I, they are stylish, and and most importantly, since wearing them at the computer, it really has, has reduced the digital eyestrain, reduced the amount of times that I just get those killer headaches from staring at my three screen set up for so long while reading all of these opinions. So I can't recommend Blue Blocks highly enough. Look, they come in non-prescription, prescription and readers, right? Blue Bloacks makes glasses for every need, right. They have the blue light that I've talked about for digital eyestraint, but they've also have, they Summer Glow for helping with low mood, and also the Sleep Plus for improving your sleep.

0:26:37 Andrew: They have other amazing products, including, I might give this a shot, the 100% blackout sleep masks. So if you've got ambient light, I like that. All of it backed by science and tested. Blue Blocks ships worldwide in rapid time. They've got easy return and exchange policies. So here's what you're to do. You're going to head on over to blueblocks.com slash OA, and you're going to use the coupon code OA to save 15% on any Blue Blocks products. So that's B-L-U-B-L-O-X dot com, B-L-U-B-L-O-X dot com slash OA. Use coupon code O-A to save 15%.

0:27:17 Thomas: This show is brought to you by WordTune. This is a super cool thing I can't wait to tell you about. Folks, you know how Andrew will say, "I'll put this in the show notes," from time to time? What he means by that is, Thomas will put this in the show's notes. I'm the person who writes the show notes, but I hate writing. I'm not naturally a writer. Maybe you're like me. Maybe you are not naturally just a gifted writer. Maybe you need a little help from time to time, and this could apply to anyone. I mean, maybe you have to write an email, especially we're all working from home these days. You got to do a lot of emailing, maybe more than ever, maybe meeting recaps, maybe you're writing a blog or a resume. These can be some tough, high-pressure situations where you want to make sure you have your wording just right. Well, imagine how much easier that would be if you had an expert on call to take a look at drafts whenever you needed them and to help you out.

0:28:06 Thomas: WordTune can be exactly that kind of writing partner for you, but in digital form. There's no need to waste time agonizing over the perfect sentence. With WordTume, you can hit deadlines on time every time. WordTune instantly provides options based on your original words that can help you take your writing to the next level. Your writing impacts how people view you, and it can shape your future prospects. That's why it's important to write as well as possible.

So like I said, I use it for the episode descriptions. I have a weird habit of often starting sentences and going on for too long. Well, WordTude is great at making that very helpful suggestion to me. Like, hey, maybe this sentence you wrote is way too long and meandering. Sort of like that last sentence I had. Word tune helps me fix all that.

Word tune is the first AI powered online writing tool that understands meaning, so you can feel confident that what you're writing is as smart as you are, every time. It understands what you trying to say, and it suggests ways to make your writing more clear, compelling and authentic. Word tune uses the most advanced language processing technology out there. No other writing tool does what word tune can do. It's a total game changer. And here's the thing, word tune works anywhere you're working online. That could be Google Docs, Slack, Outlook Web, WhatsApp, and more. My listeners can try WordTune for free at wordtune.com slash opening. Get help writing your emails, reports, presentations, resumes, blogs today. Go to wordtune.com slash opening.

0:29:35 Andrew: So now we've had a good time laughing about this. I need to tell you you get to the 30 point, this is the automatic disciplinary, right? Suspension or possible administrative withdrawal.

0:29:45 Thomas: This is like if you watch Die Hard and Die Hard 2 and sure.

0:29:48 Andrew: Is, yeah, so this is 30 points, right, 18 points is more than half the way there. 30 points are, right. Possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages, drugs, right And Commission of any felony, possession or use of weapons, stealing or possession of stolen property. OK, I mean, the alcohol seems a little crazy, but but so be it. And also procuring, financing, facilitating or obtaining an abortion. That's a 30 point violation.

0:30:16 Thomas: Just To make this perfectly clear, your doctor tells you you're gonna die if you don't get an abortion, you're like, okay, well, it's either getting expelled or death, I guess are my two options, that how it goes, that cool. Cool college, everybody.

0:30:26 Andrew: Yeah. And and crucial to this lawsuit, of the statement on sexuality and relationship, including immorality or spending the night with a member of the opposite sex. In other words, non-sexual a spending the night with a member of the opposite sex is an automatic 30-point violation. You might ask yourself, where is assault?

0:30:57 Thomas: Must be in like the 900 point violations, I'm guessing, you know, we're still, we haven't gotten there yet, yeah.

0:30:58 Andrew: Not specifically listed as an offense. Now, they would tell you. For example, they Would say sexual misconduct and or any state of undress with member of the opposite sex. By the way, that's an 18 point violation, not a 30 point violation. They would say sexual assault would obviously come under the violation of the statement on sexuality and relationship. Right. Any violation of The Policy on Sexual Harassment, Discrimination and Assault punishable by up to 30 points. So as I read this, and again, don't want to dwell too much, I will say in light most favorable to Liberty University, the punishment for sexual assault less than two up to the same as the punishment for voluntary consensual sexual behavior, including voluntary consenual non-sexual behavior.

0:31:58 Andrew: Right. That is spending the night with a member of the opposite sex. Right. And that the reason I wasted all this time going through this nonsense, ridiculous, fake universities, fake codes is the gravamen of this lawsuit. Right. It is having an honor code like this that that imposes up to their words. It's in it's in the complaint. Turn to it. Page 14 of Exhibit A. That is up to 30 points, Implying it could be less than 30 points. Violation of the statement on sexuality and relationship, that is the immorality spending a night with a member of the opposite sex, is a hard 30 points. So under the view of this code that is most favorable to Liberty University, being a victim of sexual assault is equivalent to being the perpetrator of sexual assault.

0:32:30 Thomas: Yeah. Wow, wow.

0:32:53 Andrew: Yeah. So that's why I went through all of this, because the gravamen of this lawsuit is that the existence of this the Liberty way, the honor code policy created and facilitated conditions on the Liberty University campus that made it more likely for people to be sexually assaulted.

0:33:12 Thomas: Yeah, I think that's a pretty plausible claim, don't you?

0:33:16 Andrew: I do, too. I want to talk about some of the potential difficulties. And now I want to take a look at the lawsuit. So first thing you want to do is, as always, opening arguments, read the complaint backwards. So let's turn to the last page. Who's this complaint brought by? Who represents the 12 anonymous plaintiffs here? Jack Larkin of Gouthrop Greenwood, which is a law firm that is based in eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware. That's a little bit of a weird choice. We're going to get to that in a second. But this guy has credentials, right? He's the head of their litigation department. He has previously sued a public university under Title IX, which is the basis for most of this lawsuit. He's not an earth court guy. He is a totally sane, sensible lawyer who litigates cases like this. So then you work backwards.

0:34:01 Andrew: Yeah. And ask, what are the counts that are being raised? There are seven of them. And to emphasize the skill of the attorney, these were things I had to look up for many of them, you know why? Because I'm not a Title IX litigator. So. So, for example, counts one and two assert deliberate indifference and they are divided into pre-assault and post-assalt. And so the first thing I did was I looked up deliberate indiffference. I'm like, is there a tort in Virginia of deliberate indoffence? And I couldn't find one. Instead, I found that like when you are alleging a violation of your Eighth Amendment rights in prison, if the prison knows that you have a medical condition and then they deny you access to necessary medical care, the standard you need to show is deliberate indifference.

0:34:01 Thomas: Well,

0:34:51 Andrew: And I'm like, seems kind of. And then I looked up deliberate and I just did a search for cases with deliberate indifference, Title Nine. And as it as it happens, is a specific cause of action that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1999 case called Davis versus Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, and it says that Title IX affords victims of student-on-student sexual harassment a private right of action for damages against schools that receive federal funding, like Liberty University. Under Davis, funding recipients, Liberty University, are properly held liable in damages when one student sexually harasses another, only where they were deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which they have actual knowledge that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.

0:35:52 Thomas: This sounds like, uh, I don't know if you'd call it a law, but good law. I mean, I, this is like, you're federally funded. If we find out that you are indifferent, deliberately so, to sexual assault, then we're holding out that funding. Or it sounds like the funding is damages to the student. Is that what that sounded like?

0:36:11 Andrew: Yeah, no, it's, so the idea of a private right of action means that, yes, the student can directly sue the school, right, for the damages that they suffered as a result of sexual harassment because, right. Suing another student is often, you know, not much relief in that way. So, Right. You know, particularly you talk about a 19 year old, they're not going to have any assets. Right? So, being able to sue the school is the key towards those victims being able to be rendered whole for suffering extensive sexual harassment on campus. Look, that's a high bar. Right. Like they have to, they have to be right. Deliberately indifferent to this going on on campus. You can understand. So on the one hand, you might argue that that should be lowered some right out of the idea that we want to make it easier for victims and survivors to to bring these kinds of lawsuits. On the other hand, you know, you sort of have to balance that against the intervening cause argument, right?

Like you would not want to make it such that a university is responsible for every act of private harassment by one student against another student, you right. Got to draw the line somewhere. And the Supreme Court draws it in a way that is pretty favorable to the institution. This is a kind of super negligence. Right, so you could be you could could fail to exercise ordinary care to prevent student on student sexual harassment and not wind up under the Davis cause of action for deliberate indifference.

0:36:30 Thomas: Mm-hmm. Oh,

0:37:36 Andrew: But if it is so extensive and so pervasive, and by the way, you not going into the specific facts alleged by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Again, there are allegations. This is this is why you have a lawsuit. And if they're not true, Liberty university will be able to, to mount a legal defense. Um, allegations would, would arise to that standard. Right. I'm going to talk about when we get to count seven, I have to give some more, um, really disturbing details to understand what that counts about, but we don't have to do that here. We just have to know, right. So pre-assault that is, um. The university knew its policy would facilitate sexual assault and rape on campus, which in fact happened. I can demonstrate that. And then the second count, which is, well, certainly after this happened again and again, you have to know that your policy that says sexual assault victims are equally culpable as rapists causing, is facilitating that environment.

0:38:31 Andrew: And how is it facilitating environment, we already have a culture of silence among survivors. And are repeated allegations in this complaint that says, you know, university police in processing rape complaints would say things like, well, you could go ahead and file this as an official complaint, but we're going to have to expel you if you do that because you would be admitting to a violation of the campus as honor code. So that's the allegation. That's that's counts one and two. Count three is hostile environment. Now, we've talked about that before in the workplace, but it's also true under Title Nine in the classroom. And again, this can't be one incident. And I just want to make sure as as as we walk through this, that that, you know, people understand I'm doing my best to steal... I'm steal bolt the other side as much as possible. And right. So you might say, you know, we wouldn't want a law that says you can sue Microsoft because you show up and Gary from accounting says something stupid on day one. On right.

0:38:56 Thomas: God. Yeah, and I don't think that's the other side. I mean I think that that's a reasonable way of handling these kinds of questions. I mean, the company itself should have at least an opportunity to say, whoa, whoa. Whoa, this guy's an a-hole, fire him, you know, and then not be like liable for whatever. And I mean, look, humans suck. I mean, that would be, that would be very unworkable if every single time an employee said something to another employee of any kind that was bad, the whole company is liable. It makes sense to at least give that entity a chance to deal with it reasonable fashion before they're they're liable, I would think, right? Yeah.

0:39:32 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. And, And that lay person's explanation expectations is in fact exactly how Title Nine implements hostile environment, cannot be one incident, must be pervasive, the university must have knowledge and then refuse to do anything to stop it. Really straightforward, sexual harassment uh is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Title IX prohibits gender-based harassment, which is unwelcome conduct based on a student's sex, harassing conduct based on student's failure to conform to sex stereotypes. Okay. Count four is retaliation. And again, if that word sounds familiar, we've talked about it in the employment context. Also true under Title IX on university a that that accepts federal funds, it protects any individual who reports sexual discrimination, sexual harassment or sexual violence against retaliation in the workplace.

0:40:11 Thomas: Makes sense, right?

0:41:02 Andrew: That is, you know, being fired for telling on Gary from accounting or being passed over promotions for promotions or what have you in the school environment. It is, being disciplined, being kicked out of school for reporting sexual discrimination harassment, or sexual violence. This seems Um, to me to be, um, all of these arguments are very, very strong. This one seems virtually axiomatic at this point. Again, it's a complaint. We will look at, you know, the result, but, um yeah, it seems pretty clear Liberty University does that. Count five has kind of flown beneath the radar because it's, it'S less, um of, sort of the truly, icky quality. But this is one one plaintiff, Jane Doe, number five. This is a account for, again, deliberate indifference.

0:41:47 Andrew: This is deliberate indifference and hostile environment for pregnant and parenting students. And it's, really interesting. It is that, you know, the policies are designed to treat Liberty University students like they're four year And so that that creates a disparate environment when you have, you know, an actual adult who is either pregnant or or parenting, particularly nursing. Right. Not hard to imagine that. So that's count five. Count six is negligence generally. And here the weakness is going to be the intervening cause argument. And so count six is pled anticipating a comparative negligence defense. Right. The university is goingto say, yeah, well, it doesn't really matter if we were negligent because, you the person that committed the harm was the person who assaulted you. And and so count six says, right, but you made it worse. And to the degree that you made it worse, that you emboldened that person, that you allowed that person to escape.

0:41:53 Thomas: Yeah. Wow.

0:42:49 Andrew: Right. That you're responsible for that. Really, really interesting. I've never seen an argument like that, but there is nothing implausible about sort of affirmatively pleading a pro rata. You made it worse. You're responsible for the degree to which you made it worse. The court may say it's impossible to calculate that, it may not. So I'm really interested in tracking that. Count 7 is a specific civil remedy for personal injuries. It is 18 U.S.C. 2255. And here I would say, go ahead and fast forward to T3BE if you don't want your heart broken. This is the story of Jane Doe, number 12, was on the Liberty University campus in the summer because she was a high school debater. As you might imagine, this hits me pretty personally.

0:43:37 Andrew: So she was there attending Liberty University's debate camp as a teenager, as possibly a rising sophomore, 15 years old. Alleges that she was assaulted by a Liberty University football player named Jesse Matthew Jr. in 2000. Jesse Matthew Jr. is currently serving four consecutive life sentences after having pled guilty to the murders of UVA student Hannah Graham and Virginia Tech student Morgan Harrington in 2000 in 2009 and 2014 um assaulted uh attempted to rape and and killed pled guilty to to their murders and and she details being assaulted uh this football player and then and went to report the assault.

0:44:23 Andrew: And it claims, again, there are allegations, that the Liberty University Police Department told her that she could be, quote, expelled from the debate camp because she was wearing pants in an academic building, which was at the time a violation of the Liberty Way, a violation of the dress code, and that she would be criminally charged with filing a false police report if she refused to withdraw her sexual assault report against Jesse Matthew Jr. It includes allegations that while at the police station, one of the officers high-fived Matthew and said, hey, man, I want to get your autograph. It's going to be famous someday. Then it says the police began an investigation into her claim, which seemed to consist of a demand that she uh strip and submit to being photographed by the chief of police.

She refused, um, and said, I would like to have a doctor or nurse examine me for injuries, um, and that, uh, that person could then take sample of DNA from under her nails from her fighting back. The the police refused to to transport Joe 12 to the hospital and instead until she agreed to allow herself to be photographed by the female debate coach. Claim says that her mother was never contacted regarding the photographs, that she never consented to the photographs. And that after learning that Jerry Falwell Jr. was trafficking in photographs of women taken at Liberty University, is concerned that these photographs, which, are

0:45:17 Thomas: Wait.

0:46:06 Andrew: From the complaint described as not plausibly related to a medical investigation. I'm just going to say it like that.

0:46:12 Thomas: So it's unsure whether or not this is in that asshole's like personal weirdo collection, okay. I

0:46:17 Andrew: Correct. Correct, and then it says before allowing her to leave, the complaint states that the police required her to wash her hands, which would destroy any DNA evidence, and then to present her nails for inspection, uh, and uh, when asked about the nails they said, well, yeah, yeah, but, you know, of course, right, you you would have his DNA under your nails because, you know, the sex was consensual. And

0:46:40 Thomas: I have a question, this is, is from 2000 something, right? This is very old. What's going to be the statute of limitations on these kinds of complaints? Cause this isn't against the actual rapist. This is against the school for how they're handling it. What, what, what would the kind of the statute of limitations be on that kind of claim?

0:46:41 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it It It's a really, really, really good. It is the best question you can ask here. And let me tell you, the answer is that I don't know. I will tell you this case was filed in New York. And the reason that it was filed, not that, again, remember, New York court will have to apply its own conflicts of laws, right? This was a T3BE question. Is that the complaint is upfront about trying to figure out what counts for purposes of a statute of limitations here? So, number one, the statute of limitations runs from discovery. So allegations about the university you are not aware of, for example, the photographs being potentially distributed. Right, you might have a plausible argument that says, I didn't become aware of that complaint until I realized Jerry Falwell Jr.

0:47:50 Thomas: Right. Right. Yeah.

0:47:56 Andrew: Jr., you know, had, right? Yeah, so so there may be some discovery rule arguments here, but but there was also um a section labeled statute of limitations and again this is really good lawyering, uh, this is page three of the complaint that says, um, Title Nine has no explicit statute of limitations. As a result, federal courts apply the most appropriate or analogous statute of limitations. Um, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has determined that Title Nine actions are most analogous to personal injury actions. While this generally yields a three-year statute of limitations, the most analogous statute of limitations here is New York CPLR 213-C, which provides a 20-year statue of limitations for the adult victims of sexual offenses and Section 208 for the minor victim of sexual offenses.

0:48:41 Andrew: So that's the argument they they are frontlining in their brief. You are 100 percent correct, that will be the argument. And against that argument are nobody is within three years of the commission of these offenses. But there will be three lines of argumentation that are are presented. Number one is that the analogous statutes of limitation are longer than three years. Right. That's what I just read to you. Number two is that the causes of action were not discovered until recently. And number three is a doctrine called equitable tolling, equitable toalling is whenever, whenever you see something preceded by equitable in a legal context, it means, yeah, the law doesn't say this, but we need to do this in order to be fair.

0:49:28 Andrew: And so you can, a court can decide to equitably toll a statute of limitations in certain circumstances where it would seem to be grossly unfair to apply that statute of. So I don't know how that's going to come out, but that but that's how the argument is going to be framed. And that's where the battle over this lawsuit will take place.

0:49:52 Thomas: Yeah, Yeah. You said there were 12 Jane Does, I suppose, um, how many were this same guy, do we know that?

0:49:55 Andrew: Correct. Correct. That particular, the football player, as far as we can tell,, is only Jane Doe number 12. So he is named this paragraph to 233 of the complaint that says, you 232. Shortly before a scheduled debate practice round, Doe 12 realized that she had forgotten her notes in the dorm. Returned to her room. While in the hall, Doe 12 met with a soft-spoken man who identified himself as either LJ, RJ, or RC. She was uncertain at the time. She later became aware that this man was Jesse Matthew. This is the only reference in this section to Jesse Matthew, so yeah.

0:50:06 Thomas: Okay, hmm. Okay. And then so are the 12 or the 11 others, it's just all different, uh, allegations that were covered up by different dudes, or I was just wondering if there's any like repeat problem that they kept protecting.

0:50:48 Andrew: Yep, it is possible that there are some repeats, but it is, so, So, yeah, yeah.

0:50:54 Thomas: Not that it matters. I'm just trying to get a picture of that.

0:50:55 Andrew: No, no, no. No. That's right. So, for example, right. Dose Six is was dating a graduate of the school. This is begins a paragraph 158. And it says, "In... of 2013, Doe Six's boyfriend invited her to his house where he served her two glasses of wine. After immediately drinking the second glass of wine, Doe Six became substantially immobile for what was apparently a date rape drug." Right. Right. Doe Six's male partner then climbed on top of her." I'm not going to read the rest of it. Right, but say, "After she was released from the hospital, Liberty University advised Doe Six that she would be offered counseling from the university and scheduled an appointment for her. Doe Six, Doe Six understood that the counseling was intended to be an opportunity for her to discuss her rape. Instead, she was confronted by Liberty for drinking and fined $500. She was told her transcript would not be released unless and until she paid the $500."

0:50:56 Thomas: Yeah.

0:51:46 Andrew: Doe completed the quarter and then transferred to a different school. Thank God she got out of that hellhole. But yeah.

0:51:46 Thomas: My God. Imagine how many victims there are that didn't speak up or didn't join this lawsuit. I mean, there's got to be tons. I

0:51:56 Andrew: Yeah. And remember, we read from the current as attached, to this complaint, or consumption of alcoholic beverages is a 30 point offense, right? Has a five hundred dollar fine. That's why that's why the importance of that. And is mandatory suspension from the school. Right. So again, right. Voluntary sex, voluntary alcohol is the same level of offense at Liberty University as sexual assault and drugging and raping someone. It is.

0:52:30 Thomas: You know, this is, this is a big deal, you know, because I, this, this kind of policy, maybe in this day and age, I don't know what will happen with this case. I'm going to ask you what you, what you think in a minute, obviously, but like maybe going forward, these kinds of policies, which are are so terrible. I don't even know what the right word is. I mean, it's rape culture. I mean, the idea that like these other things are as bad, these other consensual activities that adults every day, you know, take part in are as badass sexual assault. Hopefully we can get to the point where that's ugly enough. That's bad enough.That's detrimental enough to the students that you would have at your university that you just can't do that anymore. I guess we have to say if you're going to receive federal funds.

0:53:17 Thomas: I suppose that's as far as, you we're allowed to go. Yeah, it seems like if you don't receive federal fund, you can do whatever the hell you want or something. But I hope we get to a point where it's not like, oh, well, see, this is the religious university and they get to be puritanical bullshit people. You know, it's like, no, maybe this is so detrimental and so backwards that it creates an environment that is unacceptable for students. And we should not allow policies like that to be in anything that is federally funded.

0:53:45 Andrew: Yeah. But instead, what we have are 30 states rushing to introduce bills to prevent universities from teaching critical race theory. So, yeah.

0:53:52 Thomas: Ah, yes, yes. This is often brought up, during the campus craziness stuff, you know, where it's like, oh, the kids, they're yelling at a teacher who used racial slurs, and like, so therefore they're out of control in the crazy campus craziveness, and it's like, okay, but look at this university, you know, there's not a lot of attention. You used to say this all the time, didn't you, Andrew, like during these campus craziness debates, no attention put on Liberty University and and the absolute bullshit they're doing. That's somehow not the sky falling. That somehow not, you know, kids need to be, kids needs to be exposed to dangerous ideas, like die hard one, you know? Like college is the play. There's none of that talk when it comes to Liberty University. They can't even watch rated R movies. Are you kidding me? Anyway, sorry, this whole

0:53:54 Andrew: Mm hmm. Yep. No.

0:54:36 Thomas: Thing. I mean, that's not the most, don't get me wrong, this is not the most frustrating part of this thing. It's just another thing about it that's frustrating. The most frustrating and the most sickening part of this thing is the obvious amounts of sexual assault that were actively covered up by a university. It's sickening. By the way, somebody who went on to murder two women is one of the alleged people people that, the university covered up for. So that's the kind of thing that this behavior leads to, you So anyway, this, this freaking sucks, Andrew, but we had to cover it.

0:55:07 Andrew: Yeah. I know. It's newsworthy. I want people to understand. I Want people to Understand, you know, that this is a facially plausible well thought out well argued lawsuit um because you know that's that's part of why people turn to our show is

0:55:15 Thomas: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Do you think the first battle is going to be the statute of limitations? What, what, where, what do we expect going forward? Okay.

0:55:27 Andrew: Yes that is absolutely what what you are going going to see is a motion to dismiss uh from Liberty University uh on statute of limitations grounds um they will be assiduously doing their best to settle this lawsuit um while that motion is pending because if this goes to discovery this will be disastrous for Liberty University there is not a chance that they're going to want that to happen so

0:55:55 Thomas: Yeah. Oh boy. Well, uh, shut this stupid school cool down um burn to the grass sorry no I guess I can't shouldn't go that far but that's what I'm thinking should not exist uh screw this this is awful rape culture garbage that no one should be exposing their uh college age kids to

0:56:15 Andrew: Don't think we have a lot of listeners who are likely to you attend or send their kids to attend Liberty University um yeah I I mean the is the in Doe Number 12's response. And again, the debate coach stuff hits me really hard. Say it this way, because this is where it's contained. It says, my parents were concerned about me as a young teenager going off for a couple of weeks to a debate camp and staying overnight at a university, and they thought that a Christian university would make that more likely that I would be safe rather than less. And and son's doing debate camp virtually this year, but two years ago, right, I sent him off to University of Pennsylvania when he was, you know, that age, he was 15. that. And he loved it. And, you know, it's such an important part of growing up.

0:56:23 Thomas: We do please don't yeah yeah like

0:57:16 Andrew: And that background assumption, you even among our liberal, largely secular audience, right? Born religion that that that background thought of like oh well the the more the conservative an environment is religiously and culturally the the better the place that will be for my my child you would

0:57:42 Thomas: That's correlated with safety in some way and it's not all

0:57:44 Andrew: Think and I totally and that's what that's what I've just when I read this that that just just like, yeah, we all know Liberty University is garbage, but but I could totally understand a parent going like, yeah, I would never send my kid to Liberty University when I let him go to the Liberty University debate camp. You bet. Right. And of course, you might think that. So I want to, I want to wrap the segment up on, obviously it's this, it's been hard for, for both of us and probably hard a lot of our listeners. One of the repeated questions that we get know, and sometimes when the news is at its worst, right, we would get the questions of like, I don't know why you do the show like the law is all made up and nothing matters. And, you know, Trump isn't going to jail and there are no consequences for anybody for doing anything is to illustrate. I mean, this is this is part of what, I do you love about my profession and that, you know, not not everything is broken.

0:58:38 Andrew: And sometimes there are there are consequences. And, you Know, noting the ways in which, you different aspects can kind of come together provide for an opportunity for, you people who were victimized by a school's policy, to be able to come to come together and get some kind of measure of justice. Right. Like that is and it's been a hard segment. But but to me, that that's one of the best aspects of the law. And so I really do want to want to end with that kind of, you cases are bad, but that's why. That's that's Why this complaint exists.

0:59:15 Thomas: That's what hopefully the law is there to do is hopefully, we'll see, but hopefully it will provide some amount of relief to victims in this way and create change, you know, take away the money that is funding this bullshit and maybe maybe it'll incentivize that change. But, um, well, that's a tough one, Andrew. Um, but I'm really glad we covered it cause it's, it's awful and people need to know about it. You know, we can't, the, the more we sweep these things under the rug, the less there's any chance of things happening about it and, um. That's why I'm glad we've covered it. Uh, glad to hear that in your opinion, this is a meritorious, uh, lawsuit. Uh. Hopefully something happens as a result of this.

0:59:16 Andrew: Yeah. Yep. Exactly right. Absolutely. Absolutely Absolutely.

0:59:57 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

1:00:03 Thomas: Andrew, I'm going to let you cheer, cheer yourself up you You know what? Ask me a real property question. Just do your worst. Just whatever.

1:00:10 Andrew: I have something. I've something even worse than real property. No, no, I'm serious. Get a gander. You're a five question winning streak, Thomas. And it's time to bring you down a peg. So.

1:00:18 Thomas: I think it might be four, but yeah, sure. That's, you know what, it's fine. I'm going to allow it. It's, it just, it'll help everybody feel better.

1:00:27 Andrew: All right. Thomas, a patent holder brought a patent infringement action in federal court against a licensee of the patent. The patent holder believed that a jury would be more sympathetic to his claims than a judge and asked his lawyer to obtain a jury trial.

1:00:44 Thomas: Shoot.

1:00:44 Andrew: What should the lawyer do to secure the patent holder's right to a jury trial? A. File and serve a complaint that includes a jury trial demand. B. File and serve a jury trial demand at the close of discovery C. File and serve a jury trial demand within 30 days after the close of the pleadings or D. Make a jury trial demand at the initial pre-trial conference. Alright.

1:00:50 Thomas: Huh.

1:01:04 Thomas: Pleadings. Yeah. Okay. No, I see what you're saying. And this is one that's like, you got to be a lawyer and know the rules. Otherwise it's going to be very hard to just intuit what you should do. Patent holder brought a patent infringement action in federal court, federal court. Against licensee of the patent, patent holder. I guess it would have to be because it's patent. Yeah. Okay. I believe the jury would be more sympathetic than a judge. Ask the lawyer to obtain a jury trial. What should the lawyer do to secure the patent holder's right to a jury trial? Okay. So I guess the question seems to be, it's one that I'm not going to be able to get, but it's like, do you have to do that right away? So I feel like the answer is probably going time order. It seems like, let's see, file and serve a complaint. The complaint that includes a jury trial demand. Now let me think.

1:01:57 Thomas: Do in the past of the show, when we read complaints, do they include like a jury trial demand?

1:02:06 Thomas: Part of me thinks they do. I mean, I don't think we cover it much because it's usually not something we analyze, you know, but for whatever reason, I feel like you do put that in the complaint, but I'm not sure. Okay. File and serve a jury trial demand at the close of discovery. Close of discovery, close of discover. That also makes sense. You know, I think it's like, you're not doing discovery in front of a jury. So it kind of makes sense to be like, wait, you know, like let's, let's evaluate certain things about the complaint first that might, you Know, dismiss it out of hand or just whatever, whatever it might be, do that first. And then after we're done with discovery, then we talk about what kind of trial you might want.

1:02:53 Thomas: B seems pretty plausible to me. Unfortunately, they're all going to seem plausible. C file and serve a jury trial demand within 30 days after the close of pleadings, pleadings.

Pleadings I don't I mean I guess I don'T THAT SEEMS WEIRD I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND PLEADINGS SO SO THAT'S LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY DONE EVERYTHING I DONT KNOW I GUESS THIS SUCKS YEAH I GOT TO BE A LAWYER D make a jury trial demand at the initial pre-trial conference okay what should the lawyer do what's interesting is it feels like all of these should probably be fine but apparently not based on the uh logic of the question there's only one of these that will secure the patent holders right to a jury trial this is uh this is real tough I think they're all plausible c is the weirdest to me but again it could still totally be plausible um initial pre-trial conference that feels a little late d feels late you're at a pre-trail conference and you're like I want a jury and then you got to do voir dire I don't know I feel I feel like like that's late, I could be wrong, but let's eliminate D, I, again, there's no freaking way I'm getting this, so let's illuminate D, and let's, illuminate, you know, C just seems so weird to me, I don't know, that, maybe that's right, but it, just something about it seems wrong, I'm gonna illuminate C and D,I think I'm between A and B, and I think that the close of of discovery, the I, something's leaping out to me about B. I feel like it's a, it's like the natural time you would do it.

You know, I don't know why I have no confidence in this. I'm going to go between A and B and I'm gonna say it's B and let's see if the coin's probably going to finally get me on one.

1:04:41 Thomas: We'll see. Does the coin agree? The coin disagrees. Wow. They've been a lot of tails lately on these coins. Uh, so the coin is going with A and I's going with B. Final answer.

1:04:51 Andrew: And if you want to play along with Thomas and the coin, you know how to do that. Just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag T3BE, include your guests and your reasons therefore, and we will pick a winner and shower that winner with never ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortunate and not guaranteed.

1:05:06 Thomas: Andrew, I hope you and all the listeners feel better. You've embarrassed me, but I feel like you earned it after that segment. So yeah.

1:05:13 Andrew: Well, we, we time will tell as to whether I have embarrassed you or not.

1:05:20 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:05:21 Thomas: And now it's time to thank our new patrons at patreon.com/law, who, by the way, are enjoying that lot awful, a lot of amazing sanctions. Seriously, you got to check it out. It's so much fun. It's two hours. We talk about, we play highlights from the sanctions predictions of the Kraken lawyers. We make jokes. Andrew makes brilliant legal points. It's fantastic. Go check it out. Here are some people who may be checking it out if they pledged at the $2 level. And Andrew, start us off.

1:05:21 Andrew: Thank ooh, have you or a loved one been hurt by shady seafood, call the Law Offices of Habeas Porpoise today, to John Felchak, to read the Powell memo, listen to Senator Whitehouse on the scheme, U.S. authority cap, government takeover origin story, in real real life to robert sellers, to KiteEllipsus, and to JewishMonk. And I also want to give a, I also want to a separate shout-out to Freethinker215, who uh PayPal'd us a very nice donation and uh sent us a lovely message. So uh thanks, thanks also to Freethinker215.

1:06:24 Thomas: I will say, I know a Robert Zellers. I have no idea if it's the same one, but if that's you, hey, how's it going? Thanks for pledging. Either way. Thank you to Colin Maycock. I don't know if that is a prank one. It's great when you have a name that's close enough to a prank one that, you know, like Oliver Hiscock or something, you're like Colin Maycock, 124mm10. Okay. A 37 year old Canadian construction worker who was inspired by OA to get his undergraduate and hopefully his JD. Oh, awesome. Super cool. How does Andrew feel about Paul F. Tompkins stealing his voice? Really? I've never, I mean, I, I like Paul Tompkin's. I've never noticed that comparison.

1:06:24 Andrew: Ooh. Yeah. Yeah.

1:07:00 Andrew: I wouldn't I wouldn't have thought so, but yeah, I'll have to have to give him extra listen now, yes.

1:07:02 Thomas: Okay, yeah. All All right. Whatever. Maybe we can get them to guest and pretend to be you. That'd be awesome. Congrats, Jens and Naomi, two great doctors stamping out COVID in Florida and expecting a baby this year. That's awesome. Congrats. That is super cool. Every part of that, except the Florida part.

1:07:17 Andrew: And that person also messaged us, so, so thank you. Yeah.

1:07:21 Thomas: Brad Lawrence and Singing in the rain...ing Indictments. All right, thank you so much. Hope you enjoy the content. And that's our show. A rough one, but a necessary one. Thank you, Andrew. I know that was tough to have to delve into all those details. So thanks for doing that. For those us like me who maybe couldn't have gone through all that, we really appreciate you. Thanks so much.

1:07:24 Andrew: Absolutely.

1:07:43 Andrew: And you next Tuesday is going to be another hopefully Uncle Frank worthy version of the, the show, so uh we're gonna, we're going to, CRT, Critical Race Theory, part three.

1:07:55 Thomas: Right. Excited for that. We'll see you all then.

1:07:57 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.

1:08:31 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.