OA542: Oklahoma Supreme Court Overturns Verdict Against Opioid Companies

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 542. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew Torrez. How you doing?

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

0:01:26 Thomas: Oh, you know, I'm just, uh, I am at the point where I think I need the viruses that Arlo is going to bring home to do like a Google calendar, you know? Because it's like, it's getting absurd. We need to start coordinating. I just had one. Yeah, I need color coding for different viruses. Viruses, um, we've got lots to talk about.

0:01:39 Andrew: You're triple-booked on the viruses. We do.

0:01:46 Thomas: I think first, first we got to give Rittenhouse witness a round of applause for Veterans Day. Is that the first, I

0:01:53 Andrew: Yeah. Do want to say this seriously and unambiguously, right? We have a number of veterans who are listeners, and thank them for their service. In my view, about civic responsibility and doing something for someone other than yourself, which is something we've been in short supply these days. Now, it is, to kind of segue over to the Rittenhouse trial, the judge this morning did a totally normal thing. It's Veterans Day, right? He said, hey, are there any veterans here in the courtroom? And if so, stand up and we'll recognize you.

0:02:38 Andrew: And as it turns out, the only veteran in the courtroom was an expert witness being put on by the defense. And so, you know, Twitter the machine is a Twitter with the idea that, the judge is in on this. This is a part of the secret signal, along with aligning your cell phone to play Lee Greenwood.

0:02:56 Thomas: The only, the only, I'll offer one note, I'm going to offer one note, and it's this: to all the people posting online about this, you don't actually win Oscars for bad acting. Acting, that's all, because everybody's like, and the Oscar goes too It's like, no, you don't, that doesn't

0:03:10 Andrew: No yeah that the razzie would be it would make that a better joke yeah Yeah.

0:03:12 Thomas: Yeah. Exactly. Like It's bad, that doesn't, you did the wrong thing, that's okay, just Minor Comedy, no

0:03:18 Andrew: I mean, the super imposition of of Kyle Rittenhouse trying to cry over Brett Kavanaugh trying to cry, I thought I thought was well done. But but Yeah, no, I, I agree 100 percent with your larger point. And I would say, again, my thesis for this sort of comes from, I think this judge was, was legitimately thrown for a loop. A totally normal day, he came home to find like the entirety of the left and left-center universe had already painted him as, you know, being in the bag for Rittenhouse on the basis of his, you rulings that we dissected here two weeks

0:03:20 Thomas: Yeah Oh Man Yeah Yeah Yeah

0:04:00 Andrew: Ago, right? Right. And, and so I think if you want to ask, you know, to what extent is he carrying a chip on his shoulder? I think he's clearly carrying a chip on his shoulders about the press coverage. Right. So, look, that's not healthy. And I wish that weren't the case. But I think that's different than, you know, is a secret conspiracy, you hack. He's in the tank for Rittenhouse. But, you you know, look, we'll see.

0:04:20 Thomas: But The Uh I Will Say though, the Veterans Day thing that Is unfortunate Look, I get, I Get What You're saying, I Get where you're staying There's no way, way he knows ahead of time that, like, you know, although I guess odds-wise, when one side is representing the, you know, vigilante justice, you know, element of our community, and the other side is the let's-not-murder-people element of of our committee, what are the odds that there's, you know, the veteran distribution is equal there? But like, once he did that, and once the only veteran was a witness for the, for one side, that does become pretty prejudicial, doesn't it?

0:04:23 Andrew: It was not a good look. Yeah. Yeah, right.

0:04:55 Andrew: Were the judge in that case, I certainly would have audibled, right? Think about it. I mean that in the literal definition of the word audible, which is to say, yeah, right, yeah. Yeah. Omaha, Omaha. No.

0:05:01 Thomas: Yeah, we're just gonna, oh my, that's what I was looking for, yeah, I couldn't remember what Peyton Manning was, oh

0:05:12 Andrew: But no, but I mean that in the sense of you come in with one plan and on the fly you change it to something else. He very clearly came in with a plan of, OK, it's Veterans Day. Let me make sure I get this right and thank, you know, whichever veterans are in the courthouse. And and I have to say, I mean, you say what are the odds that they might be slightly higher towards the defense? Although, look, again, we have many fantastic veterans in our community here that listen to the show. Um, what are the odds that no one else in the courthouse was a veteran?

0:05:15 Thomas: Yeah that's

0:05:42 Andrew: I mean, like that, that's, that's drawing to an inside straight, right? Like, and if, if a couple of people in the gallery had stood up, right, it would have been, you know, would have been no big deal. Um, so I, it, yep,

0:05:38 Thomas: True, yeah yeah, yeah don't know, maybe when your job is is what his job is as a judge, maybe don't single anybody out, you could just be like, hey any veterans out there, thank you for your service, you know, like good enough. So my only last thought on Veterans Day is I want to honor veterans the way that we do each and every year of this show, which is we fight for policies that would actually help veterans who are homeless, who don't have health care or aren't getting access to the health care that they should have.

You know, things like that, things that actually matter rather than just waving a flag for one day and being like, thank you for your service, and then not providing you any help whatsoever. So... ever. Um, the fact that there's a single homeless veteran is a, is a tragedy. The fact that it's like disproportionate, like there's more homeless veterans proportionally than, than I don't know, like any other group. It's just, it's absolutely disgusting. And, the idea that you went to possibly went to war for, you your country or whatever, even though I'm, I'm anti-war, I mean, anti-military industrial complex, all that, but still you did that for your country and, that and should be a ticket to free healthcare for the rest of your life. Op. Obviously. I, I, obviously.

0:06:01 Andrew: Yep. Yeah.

0:07:04 Andrew: Especially mental health care. I mean- Which is grossly underfunded.

0:07:08 Thomas: What in the world system do we live in? So that's how I and the show, I think, chooses to try to honor veterans in a way that might actually help, which is to fight for policies that will actually improve their lives and not merely virtue signal for five minutes in one day.

0:07:08 Andrew: Yeah.

0:07:23 Andrew: Endorse that 100 percent. You know, my my feelings on this like yours are are complicated. You know, you and I are both sort of generally anti-war. But but I think that need more of a sense of, you know, civic pride and self-sacrifice in this country, not less. So anyway, that's that's it for that. On on that same theme, I want to give a plug for something. You and I do this every single year. It is a fantastic fundraiser that our friends slash clients over at Puzzle in a Thunderstorm do. Do. It is vulgarity for charity.

0:07:58 Thomas: That is the charity effort put on by basically the Citation Needed crew that's Puzzling with Thunderstorm, and you, Cognitive Dissonance, combined. And last time we raised, I say we, the royal we, they raised, we all raised $272,000, and this year they're going for $300,000. That's the goal, which is just mind-blowing. That's a mind-blowing amount of money. The way it works is you donate, you send the receipt to them, and they do a roast for you. There's more details, there's more rules. So go to the link in the show notes. It's citationpod.com/vulgarity-for-charity. But it'll be easier, just click on the link and the show notes and find out the rules there. Participate, it's always a lot of fun. You end up getting uh Andrew and I to to roast people you want us to roast, and it's all in the name of a great cause, which is the Modest Needs charity. Um, so it's really good stuff. Check it out.

0:08:54 Andrew: This year we have a donor, an anonymous donor who is matching the first $100,000.

0:08:59 Thomas: Hundred thousand.

0:09:00 Andrew: Yeah, is amazing. Amazing

0:09:01 Thomas: I well, that's cool. Um, wow. I don'T know what to say. Anonymous donor.

0:09:05 Andrew: Yeah uh that is pretty spectacular so

0:09:10 Thomas: All right. Big announcement that we somehow didn't already say, you know, we're due for a Law'd Awful Movies. Uh, and we decided to call an audible as you've referenced. Omaha, another audible. And we're going to do Law'd Awful Murders instead. And that murderer, in my opinion, this is the opinion of Thomas Smith, not the opinion of the show. I don't know. Is Kyle Rittenhouse.

0:09:13 Andrew: I think it's the opinion of the show

0:09:31 Thomas: OK, as merely the opinion of the Show, a Law'd Awful Murders. There is so much stuff. And this trial, I mean, again, it's covered. It's out there. We can we can actually cover it. We can actually analyze some of these key moments that people are latching on to one way or the other. We got the Rittenhouse testimony. We got the little things that happening. And we figured that would be a great use of Law'd Awful Movies for this month. So we're going to do a Law'd Awful Murders covering the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, probably playing clips, get Andrew's analysis of what's going on, maybe get his predictions, get his feelings. I can't wait. It's going to be really fascinating to go through that. So So So that'll next be the lamb. That'll be this month's lamb. And that'll probably out early next week. So it's a good time to hop on patreon.com/law.

0:10:20 Thomas: Because you want to be on the lookout for that. Law'd Awful Murders. The Kyle Rittenhouse trial. I can't wait.

0:10:27 Clip: Down the law, down the law.

0:10:31 Thomas: So, Andrew, we've got a very key, very notable sentencing in the 1-6 insurrection. Why don't you tell us about it?

0:10:31 Andrew: Yeah, this is Scott Kevin Fairlam, the bearded MMA dude, although his defense counsel points out he did one MMA fight and lost.

0:10:47 Thomas: You've got to be more specific, though. I feel like most of them are like, I'm a bearded MMA dude. That's what I think.

0:10:47 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, it really is uh, uh, he's the guy who, uh, stole the police baton, later punched a cop in the face. I mean, he, because he's an idiot, punched him in that Lexan face shield, so, you know, the cop wasn't hurt, but not because Fairlam wasn't trying, right? Like,

0:11:11 Thomas: He's like, well, in my numerous MMA fights, they don't usually have a mask in front of their face. I wasn't ready for that.

0:11:17 Andrew: Uh, this is directly from his plea agreement. Uh, after arriving on Capitol grounds, Fairlam climbed the scaffolding on the West Terrace, where he recorded and posted a video to Instagram in which he stated, "We ain't effing leaving. Either we ain't effing leaving. What do patriots do? We effing disarm them, and then we storm the effing Capitol." He then, then carried the police baton that he stole, illegally entered the building, walked past broken glass. Once he exited, Fairlam inserted himself into a line of Metro police officers, where he then shoved and punched an officer. So this is the first person in connection with the insurrection to be sentenced after agreeing to a plea of guilty. For, there were two charges, obstruction of an official proceeding, that's what everybody gets, and assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers, right? So this This is the first combination of being a Part of the Insurrection, right, which everybody gets and which if that's all, if you did not breach the Senate floor, if all you are charged with is obstruction of an official proceeding, so far that has been you get probation, right?

0:12:30 Thomas: Yeah, we got a deal on insurrections. Get You out of jail, I guess. We've we've talked about it.

0:12:35 Andrew: And again, you know, we went through

0:12:37 Thomas: It's fine. I see your point. I actually think it's not a bad point, but still the joke stands.

0:12:37 Andrew: That. Yep, we have. But yes, I agree. The joke is recognized. Recognized, okay. This is going to set the benchmark for if you were there and you were violent. So the prosecution asked for 44 months? And that is, again, federal court to federal offenses sentencing guidelines range 41 to 51 months. So 44, right, smack dab in the middle of that sentencing recommendation. The defense asked for 11 months, which would be time served, Right. He's been held since being arrested.

0:12:53 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, yeah.

0:13:17 Andrew: Judge Royce Lamberth imposed a sentence of 41 months, three and a half years, followed by three years of supervised release and $2,000 in restitution, restitution that that that is a little bit disappointing because one of the things that was explicitly in the sentencing memorandum is of course this asshole crowdfunded $30,000 for his defense Yeah, and the the prosecution specifically introduced that into evidence and said, look, this guy raised $30,000 on the basis of this, you should impose a separate special Fine of at least thirty thousand hours, and Judge Lambert declined to do that. Restitution is not the same as a penalty. Restitution is repairing the damage that you caused.

0:13:51 Thomas: God. At least that much. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. How much is our democracy worth? Is, did we get, it can we get an appraisel on our democracy? You know, they could be like, what's a square footage on this democracy, how many floors does it have, a pool, and then, uh, divide up that amount by the number of people that were involved in the insurrection, and then maybe that's the restitution. Hmm.

0:14:06 Andrew: Praise God.

0:14:20 Andrew: That is not a bad approach. But look, I want to tell you a couple really, really significant things about this. And the first is, it's Judge Lamberth. You may have have heard us talk about Judge Lamberth. I have lost a case in front of Judge Lamberth. He is the most conservative pre-Trump appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, right?

0:14:45 Thomas: So he's like, like a hippie by today's standards. Oh.

0:14:50 Andrew: He's incredibly right-wing. He has perhaps the only judge in the history of ever who has occasionally, not often, but occasionally ruled in favor of Larry Klayman in his billion different lawsuits about Hillary Clinton. At some point, Hillary Clinton just started responding to Larry Klayman lawsuits with like, no. And at one point, Judge Lamberth was like, you've got to take this seriously and produce these documents. And Hillary Clinton's argument, which would have carried the the day in my courtroom is, this is Larry Klayman, right? He's an idiot who has no idea and is doing this just to harass me, see these other 74 lawsuits.

0:15:01 Thomas: God. Yeah yeah

0:15:32 Andrew: Yeah. And Judge Lamberth was like, right, but I'm going to allow it, right? So this is, he is a very, very right-wing judge. And that is significant because he has said things that would otherwise, you indicate some level level of potential sympathy with with Trump supporters and their views. So I think that's significant. Right. I think if this had been in front of Beryl Howell, for example, she definitely would have imposed the $30,000 fine in addition to, in addition. Okay. The second thing is this now becomes the third judge in DDC to emphasize the "we're getting played" aspect of this, as all of these insurrectionists come in, you crocodile tears, I don't know why that would be on my mind, claim they're super sorry and then leave. And the second they get out, skip out of the courthouse and go on to Fox News. Well, Judge Lamberth, that Fox News thing refers to the very first person who was sentenced at all in connection with the insurrection, Anna Morgan Lloyd. And she was sentenced by Judge Lambert.

Um, he gave her three years probation for her guilty plea to just that misdemeanor, uh, the misdemeanor count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. Okay, that's what they were able to to plead it down to. Uh, Laura Ingraham then had her on her show the very next day as the first person sentenced in One Six. And, uh, and Anna went on Laura Ingraham's show and and said,

0:16:21 Thomas: Oh

0:17:09 Andrew: Well, you know, if anybody bumped into anybody, it was, excuse me, and people were very polite. Nobody was breaking anything, and it was calm enough that people were walking out of the Capitol building. You're just like, what are you talking, like, you knew we have video, right? Like, you do know we watched this, right, but Lauren Grimaster, was this an insurrection? Anna Morgan Lloyd replied, I don't believe it. I saw police officers talking and chatting with people. So reason I recount that event is because Fairlam's lawyer, in this case, in asking for a downward departure, said, my client has expressed sincere remorse, not just the type of crocodile tears because he got caught. And Judge Lamberth was like, yeah, it's kind of hard to tell how sincere someone's remorse is.

0:17:14 Thomas: Yeah it was a very clean cut insurrection yeah oh

0:17:57 Andrew: And I got played last time, And I'm not going to get played again.

0:18:02 Thomas: Really so the judge actually acknowledged that

0:18:02 Andrew: Yeah, absolutely. And that event now, he is the third federal judge, including the aforementioned Beryl Howell, my hero, who has said that, right? Beryl Howell said, judges are human and we can get played. So, again, I think it is very, very significant that the types of judges to whom these cases are going have now sort of agreed, like, hey, going to be extra vigilant about folks who come in here and seem really apologetic, and we're gonna dig a little bit beneath the surface. This. Lamberth went a little further. The next point that I thought was significant was after handing down the sentence of 41 months said, had you gone to trial, I don't think there's any jury who could have or would have acquitted you.

It's a good thing you pled guilty. And then finally, take into account actual length of the sentence. This is five times longer than the the largest sentence to date, right? So prior longest sentence, eight months for breaching the chamber. This is 41 months. And This Will Be a Touchstone. There are 210 people whose charges are pending that include assaulting or impeding law enforcement. 125 of those have already pled pled guilty. So, you we're going to see a lot more dispositions like this. And, you know, for those of you who are saying, you come to the insurrection, get a free probation and march off and go home. In Like, prison is not nothing. So that's where we are.

0:18:04 Thomas: Wow wow

0:19:43 Andrew: There are more than 675 cases pending, and like I said, 210 of those involve violence, so, um, uh, I think this is really really significant

0:19:53 Thomas: 210 jeez oh, that was the worst day. A stain on our, uh, on our country. That's a country that is full of stains, but it's a notable one. Um, but, but good to, good to see real time, you know, actual time for somebody that's, that's a step up. This episode is brought to you by paint your life. I love telling you about paint your life and guess what? It's time to get people gifts. It's almost that time. The holidays are coming up. And if you want to get somebody in your life, something meaningful, something they're going to treasure forever, I recommend paint your life at paintyourlife.com. You can have an original painting by a world-class artist done by hand from any photo at an affordable price. So you send any picture.

It could be you, your children, in your family, that loved one that you're getting the gift for, or your pets. Oh, that's fun. Or combine photos into one painting. Maybe you need, I imagine it's hard to get all your pets in one photo. Maybe there you can make an epic one where you mix them all together. That would be super cool. You choose from a team of world-class artists and you work with them until every detail is perfect.

0:19:53 Andrew: Yeah, yeah yeah exactly right, yep

0:21:00 Thomas: You can order this custom-made hand-painted portrait in less than five minutes. It's a quick quick and easy process. And you get that hand painted portrait in about three weeks. It's meaningful, it's personal, and it'll be something that will be cherished forever. It makes the perfect gift for someone you love, or as I always say, maybe you just want one for yourself and that's okay too. So give it a try. I love the painting we have of Lydia and Phoebe and the beach. And I plan to do a sequel with Arlo as soon as we get a good picture with them to do. It's so good. At paintyourlife.com, there's no risk. If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded, guaranteed. And right now, as a limited time offer, get 20% off your painting. That's right, 20%off and free shipping. To get this special offer, text OA to 64000.

0:21:46 Thomas: That is OA to 64000. One more time, text OA to 64000, paint your life, celebrate the moments that matter most.

0:21:56 Thomas: This show is brought to you by Aura. Look, everything is on the internet these days. It's increasingly meaningless to say that. Now Now it's just like, yes, internet exists and we all know this. And I'm going to sound like an old person when I say, wow, a lot of things are on the internet. My kids will be like, what do you mean? These are things, you know, they won't know. It's like, no, anyway, everything's on the internet and it has changed dramatically over the last decade. But some of your security tools may have stayed the same. Aura provides complete digital security to help protect your online accounts, your finances, your devices, and more, all in one easy to use app. App. Most credit card companies do a good job of protecting you against fraudulent. But what if a scammer files for unemployment in your name, or if your social media accounts are hacked?

0:22:42 Thomas: Aura's protection goes well beyond your credit card. And just think about how many of your things are online. Photos, finances, devices, banking, everything. And all of those things that are online are things that can be under threat to hackers, to malicious actors. And Aura can sound the alarm if your digital presence is at risk. Aura provides digital security protection to keep your online finances, personal information, and tech safe from online threats. It's all-in-one protection from identity theft, financial fraud, malware, scam sites, and much more. With Aura, you get alerted to fraud and threats fast, like if your online accounts or passwords were leaked online, or if someone tries to open a bank account in your name. Aura is easy to set up. All plans come with $1 million in theft identity insurance to help recover your stolen funds and experience US-based customer support that's got your back.

0:23:29 Thomas: Aura ist ein neuer typen von Sicherheitsservicen, der alle Onlineinformation und Geräte, mit einem einfachen Abkürbnis. With an easy online dashboard and alerts sent straight to your phone, guides you through solving any issues. For a limited time, Aura is offering our listeners up to 40% off plans when you visit Aura.com/opening. Go to Aura.com/opening to get complete protection and savings of up to 40%. That's A-U-R-A dot com slash opening.

0:24:01 Clip: Thank you, Dr. Hibbert. I rest my case. You rest your case? What? Oh, no. I thought that was just a figure of speech. Case closed.

0:24:10 Thomas: All. Uh, time for our main story. The, this was another one of those things where I see the headline and I think I need Andrew to tell me what's going on here. The Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned the verdict against Purdue Pharma, uh, you know, regarding the opioid epidemic. This seems like awful news. Um, is it? Awful news

0:24:27 Andrew: It's this is one where all the outrage you've read on left-wing Twitter is 100% correct in this case. This is a terrible verdict off of an already whittled down trial verdict. And I'm going to walk you through it kind of quickly. But this is just a giveaway to Johnson & Johnson. And the Supreme Court's ruling is essentially phrased that way. I'm gonna walk you though some of it. So the key legal, the issue here is the issue over what counts as a public nuisance, at the right? Trial court, trial court decided that that yes, the Attorney General of Oklahoma could proceed against Johnson & Johnson, and by the way, Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, a bunch of other companies which which settled out, but right?

0:25:14 Andrew: Johnson & Johnson opted to litigate this case to a verdict, right, and this was a bench trial before Judge Tad Balkman in District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma. So, so, what is a public nuisance, right? A nuisance is doing an act or omitting a duty, which act or emission either, and here I'm reading from the Oklahoma statute, which is 50 Oklahoma statutes one, annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of others, offends decency, unlawfully interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct, or renders dangerous for passage any lake or navigable river, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, street, square, or highway, or, and this is the critical part, in any way renders other persons insecure in life or in the use of property.

0:26:08 Andrew: And then there's an amendment from the 1800s, I could not make this up if I tried, that says, provided this section shall not apply to pre-existing agricultural activities. Activities, there is a like 134 minute deep dive that I could give you on the significance of this agricultural amendment to the Oklahoma, but, you know, not not today. So, so basically, like, a public nuisance is whenever something is happening that interferes with the rights of the public, and if, if you're thinking that seems pretty broad, yeah, it is really broad, and right? So lots of disparate things have been considered kind of classic public nuisances, right, and skipping ahead, the remedy you get if you bring an action for a public nuisance, the remedy you get is abatement, right?

0:27:00 Andrew: That is clean up or stop the activity that's preventing people from enjoying their liberty or their property, So right. This has been things like health hazards and pollution, trash piling up in neighborhoods, yeah, right, yes, Yeah, can also be used right against, uh, outdoor concerts, right, for the lights and noises, right, and even, and and this has been an increasing area of, uh, of public nuisance doctrine for criminal activity, gang activity, right, like when, when you kind of can't figure out, uh, a level beyond a reasonable doubt who all is involved, uh, in, you know, what the local police are calling a gang, uh, there have been multiple successful efforts, including in Oklahoma, where the attorney general or some other public official will come in and say, we want what's going on here, which includes hanging out on X street corner and doing this and doing that, declared a public nuisance.

0:27:13 Thomas: The plot of every cartoon in the 90s Paul oot the planet yeah

0:28:05 Andrew: We want injunctive relief that will stop that so that then people can come back and and reclaim their neighborhood. And I'm not trying to downplay and gang and criminal behavior, I'm also very cognizant of the tremendous amount of racial bias that tends to go into those decisions, both prosecutorial and civil. But OK, so that's a public nuisance. If you're thinking, is manufacturing and selling and marketing opioids a public nuisance? You know, the answer is probably a good solid maybe, right? Like it is, this seems like a pretty loose kind of tort. The plain language of the statute says that it consists of something that in any way renders persons insecure in life or the use of property, you know, which getting a state, a country hooked on illegal painkillers certainly seems to fit that category, right? So, you know, I want to acknowledge that that designation to the opioid crisis was, was, it was novel, right? Like there have been a great many number of novel expansions of the public nuisance doctrine, right.

0:28:37 Thomas: That

0:29:25 Andrew: Like the first case to apply that to pollution was a novel expansion of the Public Nuisance Doctrine, um, there was an

0:29:32 Thomas: Seems like the definition of a public nuisance though, huh it's

0:29:33 Andrew: Yeah that's right, um And so, uh, bench trial 2019, before Judge Balkman, uh, and he ruled that it was in fact a public nuisance, required Johnson & Johnson, the sole remaining defendant, to clean it up at a cost of $572 million. Now, $572 million on the one hand is a lot of money, but on the other hand, the state Attorney general, Mike Hunter, sought $17 billion, which seems more in line with what what you might need to abate the effects of the opioid crisis. And the reason that it got whittled down by, it is a couple percent of the actual of the top line value sought is because the court only awarded one year of the abatement plan. Right. It said the evidence that you've introduced convinces us that it would be an appropriate abatement to require. And it goes on for 12 and a half pages. Right. The following things to be done. But that would all be done in in one year. And that totaled 572 million dollars. So, and I will point out if you're asking,

0:29:55 Thomas: Nothing. Wow.

0:30:45 Andrew: This Johnson & Johnson getting off lightly? Their stock went up 4% the day that verdict came out. So, you know, infer what you will. I will tell you, investors said, oh, we thought it was going to be larger than this, right?

0:30:52 Thomas: Yeah. The Investors were like, I like the fundamentals of this stock, you know, the fundamentals, like, like not having to pay back people for killing ruining everybody's lives. Good technicals on that stuff.

0:31:02 Andrew: Right. Yeah. So that is what was just overturned by the Oklahoma state Supreme court. Uh, and again, I, you haven't asked the question, uh, but I, I know you've teed it up for our listeners. Uh there's no appeal from this case, right? This is a question.

0:31:25 Thomas: Is no appeal because it's Oklahoma Supreme Court.

0:31:26 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, yep. This is the question of how to interpret the Oklahoma statute, uh 50.1 at SEC. And, uh there's, no there's higher source than the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. So this is it. This is the law of the land in Oklahoma until you get a new Supreme Court in there to overturn this decision.

0:31:33 Thomas: Wow.

0:31:47 Thomas: What? This is terrible.

0:31:49 Andrew: It is. And it gets worse. As you read this opinion, we're going to link it in the show notes. I recommend reading the opinion. It's 28 pages pages long. It's not hard to read. And into page, it's page three, right? But it is the first analytical page after the captions, right, because the captions go on for the first two pages. And it is a love letter to the opioid industry.

0:32:17 Andrew: So let me read some of this, right. An opioid drug epidemic exists in the United States. What we cannot ignore is that improper use of prescription opioids led to many of these deaths. Few deaths occurred when individuals used pharmaceutical opioids as prescribed. We also cannot disregard that chronic pain affects millions of Americans. It is a persistent and costly health condition, and opioids are currently a vital treatment option for pain. The Food and Drug Administration has endorsed properly managed managed medical use of opioids taken as prescribed as safe, effective pain management and rarely addictive. I mean,

0:32:17 Thomas: Oh my God.

0:32:53 Thomas: Did fentanyl

0:32:54 Andrew: I'm seriously like that seems like a press release from Johnson and Johnson. It is just it offensive. And that that tone permeates this entire decision. And now I'm going to tell you sort of what the decision comes down to. Now, look, it is not in the abstract, Right. The argument of, hey, you're asking us to expand the concept of public nuisance and we decline to do so. Could write that opinion.

0:32:55 Thomas: Write that? Yeah.

0:33:23 Andrew: Right. Like, I don't agree with it.

0:33:23 Thomas: Yeah, but why would you go into your like like sales brochure on opioids. You know, they're actually really good. And if you just use them as direct, you know, like if that was going to be what you did, why wouldn't you just stick to the like, well, it's a technical argument, you Know, like it just doesn't qualify as a public nuisance under the following whatever's, you Now, yeah,

0:33:42 Andrew: Well, and the reason, I think, is because if you apply legal analysis, right, if you just parse the plain language of the statute and you look at the case law, you would come out the other way? And so, for example, beginning on page 11, the majority says, you know, first we have to look at the underlying activity. And for the past century, the kinds of activities that we have considered to qualify under the statute are either, one, committing crimes, or two, causing physical injury to property or participating in an offensive activity that rendered the property uninhabitable. Now, that is an overly narrow view of those cases, which I have looked at. But notice that basically what they're trying to set up is in prior cases, there's an inherent underlying wrongdoing.

0:34:35 Andrew: That is correct. And then the only way around that is to say, but there isn't a wrongdoing here in this case. Now, the only way to do that, and this is a spoiler, is to go virtually the entire opinion and focus on the manufacturing of opioids without discussing the marketing of opioids, right? Because the crime, the tort here, right, sorry, let me not slip in, the metaphorical crime, the civil wrong that has been committed here is not making the drug, make whatever the hell you want, right, the problem is the uh ridiculously um, I'm sorry, I'm searching for a word that isn't lying, but like the lying that pharmaceutical companies did in marketing, getting their products. Right.

And, and let's go back to, you know, the trial court opinion. Right, like this, was there was undisputed evidence from the, at the, at trial court level that what these giant pharma manufacturers did with respect to their products was convince, convince physicians to prescribe opioids as safe. And in one of the most shocking bits of evidence, I'm just going to read directly from, this is from the dissent here, quoting from the trial court's opinion. "One of the misrepresentations included the advice that patients who exhibited signs of addiction, e.g. asking for higher and higher doses of opioids or returning early before where a prescription should have run out, were not actually suffering from addiction, but from the undertreatment of pain."

0:35:00 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. I

0:36:20 Andrew: And the solution, according to defendants' marketing, was to prescribe the patient more opioids. Defendants' Marketing characterized such patients as needing more opiates and suffering from a, quote, pseudo-addiction and not an actual or real addiction.

0:36:36 Thomas: Think you could substitute in heroin in that same thing and it would make just as much sense. You Know, why?

0:36:40 Andrew: Yeah, like it ongoing activities in my view are what differentiates this from, you know, for example, the primary case that the Oklahoma Supreme Court relies on is a case called Tioga. It's a federal eighth circuit case about about asbestos, right? And the Eighth Circuit, in that decision, said that you could not treat asbestus as a public nuisance, And, and, and the reason, really, is that there was no, the asbestos was a, had a product defect, and right, that defect was its friability, right? The fact that it would break off into pieces and then people would inhale those pieces and get lung cancer, asbestosis, all that other stuff, right? And the idea was that the companies that manufactured it, you know, just were just manufacturing their product, right, like they weren't trying to get people sick, they weren't to cause a

0:37:08 Thomas: Well, okay.

0:37:43 Andrew: Problem, yep,

0:37:44 Thomas: So what What is the way that people who obviously deserve money at a minimum from that company, what is theway they're supposed to get it if not public nuisance? Is it just a product

0:37:53 Andrew: The way in which which you're supposed to get, is products liability. That's exactly right. So the entirety of the Tioga decision is let's keep product liability and public nuisance separate, right? Now, I will point out a couple of things. Number one, that idea of separation was an argument that was made against extending the public nuissance doctrine to things like environmental and and pollution, and health hazards, right? So that line has already been obliterated in cases where the storage of waste products, right, other cases that previously, it's already been obliterate in lead paint cases, for example, you can both sue the lead paint paint manufacturer for manufacturing a product with a defect,

0:37:54 Thomas: Liability thing?

0:38:47 Andrew: That defect being if it flakes off and your child eats it, your child gets super sick and suffers from brain damage and all kinds of other health hazards, right? You can sue paint manufacturers under a product's liability theory Or under a public nuisance theory, right?

0:39:05 Thomas: You can't do both?

0:39:06 Andrew: You can. The reason, this is a bit more of a legal rabbit trail, but the reason to do both is you sue in products liability when you can identify the manufacturer, right. Right. And so the problem that you have is you have a lot of these downtown neighborhoods, right, that were gang painted with lead paint back in the 1940s. But nobody knows whose paint they used.

0:39:22 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:39:34 Andrew: Right. And so under a public nuisance theory, you don't have to trace that back to each individual manufacturer. Right. You just have to say, yeah, that's a public nonsense. Clean it up. Right, abate the problem. Whereas if you want to sue somebody, my baby ate the paint chips, uh, you have to show whose paint chips did did your baby eat, right? You can't just go on a market theory and be like, well, you know, she ate 40 percent of Sherwin-Williams and 20 percent of Bear. You know, nothing the

0:40:06 Thomas: But the logic of that, you know, a brochure for opioids that we read a minute ago that's apparently this decision already seems to go against that, too. Like, in the language, they're like, well, it's actually if you'd use it as prescribed, it's totally fine. So is there just no problem here? Does the court think there's just absolutely no problem and there's no reason that they should have to pay any money out?

0:40:29 Andrew: Mean, yeah, yes, I think that is the the fair, well, I'm like trying to find a fair reading. But what the court says is, this should be a products liability case. And by the way, the products are fine. So yeah, so I think that is correct. I will tell you, it's on page 15, the three arguments that are given, all you will hear, ignore the advertising part, right? So main arguments upon which the court relies are, one, manufacturing rarely causes a violation of a public right. Evaluate that however you will. Two, manufacturers generally lack control of their product after it's sold. And three, manufacturers could be held liable in perpetuity for as long as their product stays in the stream of commerce. And it seems like the answer to all

0:40:34 Thomas: Yeah. Product is fine. Yeah.

0:41:15 Thomas: Yeah.

0:41:15 Andrew: Three of those is, right, then the way in which we handle this and the way in which we distinguish the asbestos opinion is by saying that from henceforth, right, the requirement under Oklahoma law is that you must plead not only the existence of a product that is dangerous, but ongoing active wrongdoing in promotion, use, what, you know, right? Like of that product. And here, you Know, the, I mean, there's just mountains of evidence, right. Like, again, it is not that the manufacturer of the opioid was a problem. It's that once it was out there, they worked every angle to make sure that it was over-prescribed. Want to modify that sentence a little bit. There's nothing inherent in the manufacturer of a single unit of said product, right?

0:42:08 Thomas: Yeah. No, yeah. I mean, there's dangerous substances that have uses in anything, You know, and it's like, how is it being used and why? It seems clear that this was a public nuisance in that they created an environment where way too many people were getting way too much of this and we're getting hooked on it. Like, it seems inarguable. This is just a disgrace.

0:42:11 Andrew: Right, yep.

0:42:30 Andrew: Only other argument that is made is last part, which is, and by the way, public nuisance is usually something that is connected to a property. And I will tell you, again, right, that's the extension part of the doctrine. As the dissent points out, right, the court's analysis suddenly stops at this point and fails to explain that a property-based nexus, while necessary in private nuisance causes of action, is not always a required element in a public nuisance common law action. In other words, a common law public nuisance may be created using chattel or personal property as a means or instrument which causes injury to a public right. And this type of action has been incorporated into the plain language of our nuisance statute, which I read to you earlier. So yeah, I think it, it is a combination of, you know, the words just mean what the words say they mean, unless, of course, it would result in, you knows, billions of dollars of liability to huge multinational corporations.

0:43:26 Andrew: And, you know, the kind of, we're going to read this as narrowly as possible, even though doing so requires us, you know, functionally to ignore what's actually going on.

0:43:38 Thomas: This This show is brought to you by X-Chair. That means you know what time it is. It's when I tell you about my X-Chair while sitting in my X chair. From the moment I sat in this chair, my body immediately said, "Ah, so this is what a real office chair is supposed to feel like." I've said it before.

I had, I had a chair that was supposed to be very good, was definitely expensive, and guess what I changed out because it wasn't good enough when I compared it to my X-Chair. The X-Chair is way better. This x chair can give you a massage while you're working. It can heat up or cool down, which is critical for me in California. More often it's hot than it than it is cold.

It's all in the LMX massage and temperature regulation, exclusively designed and made for X-Chair. And once you feel the customized support of X-Chair's patented dynamic variable lumbar, or DVL Your back will never be happy in another chair. Again, it's high performance. It's quality engineering. It is extreme comfort. Those are all the reasons I love my X-Chair. Try it yourself. Take my advice. Try X-Chair for yourself risk-free for 30 days. Once you realize how much better your chair should be, you'll never go back. I promise. Go to xchairoa.com now. That's the letter X, chair, O, A dot com, or call 1-844-4X chair for $100 off your order. X-Chair has a 30-day guarantee of complete comfort and you can finance your purchase for as little as $30 a month. That is xchairoa.com.

0:45:05 Thomas: This show's brought to you by Raycon. Folks, you know what time of the year it is. It's almost holiday time and it's never too early to start gift shopping for the holidays, especially because those supply chain issues. So you got to get on it right now. And if you want a great idea for a gift that you can save big on and that someone you love will use every day, it's Raycon wireless earbuds. I use my Raycons all the time. I use them doing chores because I'm the kind of person who I can't just be doing one thing. Regardless, I can't just be doing one thing if I'm doing chores, if I am outside, if I'm doing whatever. I have to be listening to stuff because I love listening to podcasts. I love listening to books. And so I use my Raycons whenever I'm doing chores, whenever I am doing something that I could be taking advantage of that time to listen, I do. With seamless Bluetooth pairing and a comfortable noise isolating fit, you can start listening right away and keep listening for hours.

0:45:56 Thomas: The audio quality is amazing, comparable to what you get from other premium brands, except Raycon starts at half the price. The new Everyday Earbuds come with three new sound profiles, just to make sure everything you're listening to sounds its best with just the right amount of bass. There's pure mode, there's balanced mode, and there's bass mode, so you might change it if you're listening to a podcast versus music, and it's got those different modes that you can check out. And here's the most important thing, Raycon, to me anyway, offers eight hours of play time and a 32-hour battery life. That's a ton, because there's nothing worse than when you are set to do something, a long chore, a long walk or whatever, jog, and you're like, "All right, got my earbuds," and they're out of battery and you can't enjoy any of that stuff in that time you had. But the Raycons have that long battery life.

0:46:42 Thomas: So that won't happen as often. There's also a built-in mic and you can take calls on your earbuds at the press of a button. So this holiday season, get them something they can use for calls, for music, for work or play at home or on the go, or pick up a pair for yourself. Trust me, you're going to use them every day. So go to buyraycon.com/opening today to unlock exclusive deals up to 20% off your Raycon order. But hurry, this offer is available for a limited time only, and you don't want to miss it. That's buyraycon.com/opening to unlock 20% off your Raycons. Buy buyraycon.com/opening.

0:47:23 Thomas: This reeks of corruption to me. I don't understand. I mean, I'm sorry to get a tinfoil hat, but what I just read, just reads like they wanted to come up with a result. And it's one thing, you where it's a typical right-wing court coming up with a right-wing opinion, you know, like, yeah, it's awful, but I don't really think of it as corruption. It's more like, yeah, they're just doing whatever they want with the law. But I don't see what's in it for Oklahoma Supreme Court, apart from, I might be wrong. I don't understand. Like, why would they even be doing this?

0:47:24 Andrew: It does. Yeah. Yeah.

0:47:53 Andrew: My theory would be, and I'm 100% serious about this, maintaining Oklahoma's reputation as a business-friendly jurisdiction.

0:48:04 Thomas: How much do you think justice on the Oklahoma Supreme Court ought to take that as their reason for existing? You know, I don't

0:48:12 Andrew: Well, ought to, I think very, very low. How much do I think it happens? A hundred percent. It happens all the time.

0:48:21 Thomas: Know. So they're just that conservative where they're like anything that's against a business, is I'm not for that, how

0:48:23 Andrew: It it we I have had judges tell me, conservative judges tell me off the record, you know, hanging out at events, I'm not going to sign off on something that lets it be known that my jurisdiction, you know, my state is the kind of state that could impose, you know, $12 billion in liability or something like that.

0:48:49 Thomas: About you just enforce the fucking law, asshole? Like, what, I don't need you to be worried, you're not part of the Better Business, of a Chamber of Commerce, it's- it's the legal chambers, not the chamber. No, I don't know. Got nothing you're right, there's nothing there.

0:49:00 Andrew: I like it, but no, I'm not. I'm standing on the sideline

0:49:04 Thomas: I agree. There's nothing. You don't need to be like a lobbyist for Oklahoma. Come visit Oklahoma and do business here as a judge. You could just, you know, do. Just decide stuff on the basis of the law.

0:49:05 Andrew: On this one.

0:49:15 Andrew: Maybe just call balls and strikes. That'd be interesting. So there you go. A truly bad decision.

0:49:17 Thomas: Yeah, there you go. So we're screwed. There's no

0:49:23 Andrew: Yeah. Nope.

0:49:23 Thomas: More. I mean, okay. What's the Status of every single lawsuit? Real quick, Andrew, because there's a lot of states doing this, right, and there have been successes and failures. What

0:49:26 Andrew: That's it. Yeah, and check back in. This was a very, very prominent verdict, for it to be reversed on appeal absolutely is going to affect global negotiations, right, between various states' attorneys general. I mean, this drastically drastically changes the dynamic of, you know, sort of where opioid manufacturers are in their relationship to the law. Because now, like, I mean, every subsequent case, right, or every case that is pending, You right? Are going to see that court, and I know because I've had to do this before, right? That there's a similar case in New Jersey, and they've had oral argument before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

0:50:23 Andrew: Same thing, right, you know, trial court victory, because these tend to be trial court victories. And they've had oral argument before the New Jersey Court, but that court has not yet issued a ruling. What's going to happen in the next week is that court will issue an order to the parties to submit supplemental briefings, right, to say, uh, all right, we want to know, you know, what your view of the case is in light of this Oklahoma decision, yeah.

0:50:48 Thomas: Do you make of it can You just talk all kinds of crap. Well, Oklahoma's idiots down there, that Supreme Court

0:50:52 Andrew: Uh, you Uh, I, you can, right, like it is, and I have done that before. Right, like I have said, but but the problem is when it's a case of first impression, what you, you really want to be able to do, is, and you want to say, okay, courts have gone both ways on this issue. We think the better reasoned view is the one that aligns with what we want, which has been true in X, Y, and Z. Now, of the courts that have held the opposite view, we think those cases are, are not well-reasoned because, and then you go through and distinguish them, right? And that's the kind, look, courts see that kind of argumentation all the time, right, like that's the kind of thing as a lawyer that you're very comfortable doing. When it is a case of first impression and a court comes out of the box to say, hey, that court just got it wrong, it's still what you have to do, right, if you're, you on the side of the public on this. But it's a tougher argument.

0:50:59 Thomas: Yeah.

0:51:25 Thomas: So Let me just make sure I have all everything, what happened. So they, in Oklahoma, at least they went for the Purdue Pharma, J&J, whatever, they sought billions, they got millions, and then that's just been turned to zero dollars, is that what happened? Yeah.

0:52:09 Andrew: Now, there are still settlements. The settlements are still valid, right? This does not overturn those.

0:52:09 Thomas: Okay. Are Within Oklahoma, okay.

0:52:15 Andrew: Within Oklahoma, with Teva and with Purdue Pharma. So I want to put an asterisk by the nothing. They got some settlement dollars out of Purdue Pharma and out of Teva, the money out of Johnson & Johnson, and crucially, like, right, I've been using the legal word abatement, right? Because I'm a lawyer, and it's in the opinion, and that's what I do. But, right. Abatement when it's lead paint on the walls is really easy. You come in, you scrape all the paint off the walls, and you repaint the walls. Abatement in this case is a much more, and again, maybe this is part of the argument of, you it not being a perfect fit or it being an extension of current public nuisance doctrine, but it meant coming in and establishing treatment clinics and addiction clinics and funding those, right? Like this, this is, that $572 million would have done real good for real Oklahomans who are suffering from

0:52:15 Thomas: There's Yeah.

0:52:35 Thomas: Yeah.

0:53:12 Thomas: How

0:53:12 Andrew: Opioid addiction.

0:53:12 Thomas: About you Think about them, you Supreme Court, business, Chamber of Commerce, justice, you don't care about that. Wouldn't that be good for business, you know, like having people not be addicted terribly to opioids and dying. Wouldn't that be good for the business of Oklahoma?

0:53:25 Andrew: I would think, I would thank.

0:53:29 Thomas: Outrageous. All Right. Squeezing in as always. One more segment here on the one six commission. What's going on there?

0:53:30 Clip: WOAH-

0:53:35 Andrew: Yeah. So the one six commission subpoenaed the White House for White House records regarding speeches, communications, calendar entries, other media related to Donald Trump's speech, you know, at the ellipse on one six, um, also, uh, requested materials, uh, by planning by the White House and others regarding the electoral count, preparations for rallies, you know, all of the stuff, uh, that shows the coordination in between the White House and the insurrectionists, um, August 30th, uh, and again, this is yet another benefit of controlling the White House, uh, now our Office of Legal Counsel gets to write sternly worded crunch wraps, uh, that explain what the law is.

0:54:27 Andrew: And so OLC wrote a memo that was like, yeah, um, this is all a matter of executive privilege, but executive privilege belongs to the guy who's in the White House, not the guy who's not in the White House. Uh. The Biden White House was like, oh, no, these are not privileged at all. And so there are several different tranches of documents. The first is 129 pages that Trump has said 39 of those pages are covered by executive privilege. Biden administration has said, no. No, no, they're not. And unless something happens tomorrow, and I will tell you what that something might be. And by tomorrow, I mean, we're recording this on Thursday. So as you're listening to this, the National Archives has said, we are going to turn over those records and we are going to begin production of additional tranches of documents. There are thousands and thousands of pages that they have already identified, that the Biden administration is like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

0:54:38 Thomas: Yeah.

0:55:24 Andrew: Turn all those over. And Trump has desperately sued to stop. Judge Chutkan ruled that there was a legitimate legislative purpose and at that point about no likelihood of success on the merits, that public interest favored the release of the documents. You know, basically, no chance I'm staying this. There has been an immediate appeal filed today to the D.C. Circuit, and that appeal has requested an administrative stay. And that is, we've talked about that before, temporary just to allow the parties to brief everything up. The proposed briefing schedule is president files his brief tomorrow. Archives and the current administration would file their opposition on Monday, and then they would get a reply brief on Tuesday, and And then the court could issue an opinion immediately after that.

0:56:18 Andrew: They may not get that, right? Administrative stays are routine, but not something that you're entitled to as of right. And so if the D.C. Circuit does not intervene, does not either stay or administratively stay the proceedings pending further briefing, then the National Archives has said, we're turning those documents over tomorrow. Tomorrow. So, uh, you know, keep, keep it tuned to us.

0:56:40 Thomas: Were you surprised about this because the stuff they've described sounds like the stuff you've defended in the past is like this actually should should be privileged. You there's the draft executive order, you know, regarding election. I mean, it's all, I'm, I want it to come out, but I'm kind of surprised that this is happening. And I'm curious if you would worry about this going forward, you know, when people are, when, when the executive branch, when the president, the cabinet are, you know, working up ideas and drafts of stuff. Now, are they going to do so thinking this could be released by the next administration?

0:57:15 Andrew: Yeah. And I, I have not seen the written determinations of lack of privilege made by the White House, right? Those were filed under seal. Uh, but I suspect that, that they will say, this is not privileged because of the crime fraud exception, right? So, yeah, I am Very, very comfortable with the rules being like, yeah, we want to protect the the deliberated process privilege. We definitely want, you know, the president to have full confidence that all the options are on the table and this won't be disclosed unless you're planning the overthrow of democracy. And then, like, we're comfortable with releasing that stuff. Stuff.

0:57:31 Thomas: Hmm. Oh, okay. Yeah.

0:57:50 Andrew: So that would be, so I can't tell you what the White House has said in terms of disclaiming privilege, but I can say that's what I would have said. The second thing is, you know, remember that privilege rests with the office. And so if the court opinion here is because the current officeholder has declined to assert executive privilege in this case, you we hold X, Y, Z, that would preserve at least, it would not set the precedent that these kinds of documents are

0:57:50 Thomas: Fair.

0:58:06 Thomas: Mm-hmm. Right.

0:58:27 Andrew: Not privileged. It would say in the future, yeah.

0:58:29 Thomas: But that's why I said the next administration, you know, if the next administration is a different party, I guess all that stuff could come right out.

0:58:36 Andrew: Well, and The answer to that question really comes from the the Nixon-era 1974 Presidential Records Act, which changed the characterization of presidential records from private to public, saying, you know, hey, the public owns these documents, not you personally. After Richard Nixon was like, well, there are certain things I'm going to burn the second I'm out of office.

0:59:01 Thomas: Right, right.

0:59:02 Andrew: And so the compromise that the Presidential Records was that for the first 12 years, you have a presumptive right as the president to control access to your records and documents. That's why you will see, you know, presidents kind of build their presidential library, right? That's what that 12-year term coincides with, right, the idea is you get control of it for the First 12 years. That is also, I think there are some some national security considerations in there, right? Yeah, all of that sort of stuff. But Congress has the right to supersede that and access any records, quote, it needs to conduct its business, end of quote. That is 42 U.S.C. section 2205 subsection 2C, right.

0:59:51 Andrew: And so that's why this was about legislative purpose. Does Congress need access to the presidential memos and collaborations and conspiring with the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys to conduct its business? Well, if you think one of Congress's business is to protect the Capitol and future elections against future interference and attempts to overthrow it, which Judge Chukin agrees is a legitimate purpose of Congress, then yeah, they do need access to those records. So the burden shifts to Congress to justify, hey, look, we're not just asking for stuff that will embarrass you, we're saying we have a legitimate legislative purpose, we need access to that in order to know, right, like you, you need to know where the points of failure were, uh, in order to know how to craft future legislation, so, uh, that's, uh, that's where we stand and hopefully we'll get it. Just a quick update to this segment.

1:00:49 Andrew: After we recorded, late in the day on Thursday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did, in fact, grant the administrative hold that I talked about. A little bit surprised about that because the arguments are so weak. But again, administrative stays are granted as a matter of course. That includes oral argument will now be November 30th before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. So we will not be getting those documents tomorrow, but it is headed along expeditiously.

1:01:18 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

1:01:24 Thomas: And now it's time for T3BE, the exam. So difficult, even Andrew Torrez gets it wrong on occasion.

1:01:32 Andrew: Thomas, on January 1, a man offered to sell his neighbor his lawnmower for four hundred dollars. The neighbor was considering whether to purchase the lawnmower. The neighbor said to the man, I cannot decide whether I want to buy your lawnmower. If I pay you ten dollars will you leave the offer open until January 5th. The man agreed to leave the offer open until January 5th, and the neighbor paid the man $10. On January 2, the neighbor told the man, I reject your offer. The man did not take any steps in reliance on the neighbor's rejection.

On January 3, the neighbor told the man I accept your offer. Is there a contract between the neighbor and the man. I love this question. A, no, because the January 3rd statement constituted a counteroffer. B, no, because $10 is not considered to be adequate consideration to hold open an offer. C, yes, because the man did not take any steps in reliance on the neighbor's January 2 rejection and the neighbor accepted the offer prior to the January 5th deadline. Or D, yes, because an option contract can always be accepted during the time period that the offer is held open.

1:01:52 Thomas: Okay. Oh. Gosh.

1:02:45 Thomas: What

1:02:46 Andrew: Love it

1:02:46 Thomas: A tough one. Do love this question. I also want to note that Andrew tried to send me a question that had the correct answer highlighted, and I said no, and I made him do a whole new question because it's sanctity to the game. Wouldn't, I'm not going to take any freebies, I want to earn my sub 50 score that I'm gonna have soon, soon. All okay, let's go through the answers and I'll talk about it. I mean, so basically just to resummarize, guy's got like an offer on the table for a lawnmower for 400. If he decides by, you know, so there's no deadline on the the seller's side, he's just offering him it and the neighbor's like, oh, don't sell it to anyone else.

Essentially, you know, leave it open until January 5th. Is, he says, I reject your offer. The man didn't take any steps in reliance on the neighbor. January 3rd, the neighbor told the man, I accept your offer, okay. Is there a contract between the neighbor? So, it's interesting to say, is there a contract? That's a weird way to ask it. I was thinking it's going to be like, can the man buy the lawnmower? But okay, let's see.

1:02:55 Andrew: Is true, uh,

1:03:41 Thomas: A, no, because the January 3 statement constituted a counteroffer, a counter offer. So, well, that's weird. Okay. So, on January 2nd, the neighbor told the man I reject your offer. On January 3rd, the neighbor told the man I accept your offer, so A is saying the January 3rd statement constituted a counter offer. That doesn't make any, none of that makes any sense to me. I'm eliminating A. If it's A, I'm just not going to ever be a lawyer because that makes no sense. I don't know what that means. Constituted a a counter offer. No, I don't get it. B, no, because $10 is not considered to be adequate consideration to hold open an offer. I don't think that's true. I feel like you're just holding open, you're just not selling it. That's $10 on a $400 purchase to leave it open for four days.

1:04:30 Thomas: That doesn't seem so inadequate as to not even be doable. I'm eliminating A and B, which is weird. So I'm going with a yes answer, I guess, by that. And we'll just have to see which one. See, yes, because the man did not take any steps in reliance on the neighbor's January 2nd rejection and the neighbor accepted the offer prior to the January 5th deadline. Strong contender there. Okay. Is it still a contract because he didn't take any step? So that suggests that the January 2nd saying, I reject your offer, would have negated the contract, except that the guy didn't take any steps based on that. It's not like he went and said, oh, okay, I'll go resell it. Or is it yes because D, yes, because an option contract can always be accepted during the time period that the offer is held open.

1:05:18 Thomas: And here's the thing. I'm kind of leaning toward D because, you know, January 2nd, I reject your offer. Well, really any day that he doesn't take the offer, he's kind of rejecting the offer, when you think of it like that. You know, like on one hand, you think like, oh, he's closing the contract. He's saying, nevermind, don't need it. Or, I mean, every day that he doesn't purchase it between January 1st and January 5th, every day that he doesn't purchase it, he's essentially rejecting the offer. So does it really, is it really any different than that? Like is, is January 2nd, him saying, I reject your offer any different than January 2, he just doesn't say anything. Like it's, it's kind of the same, right? Unless he, you know, like I think you would need to specify, need it, don't leave the option open anymore. Because really, if you pay him $10 to leave the offer open until January 5th, he could say, I reject the offer every day until January 5th and be like, nope, today I accept.

1:06:10 Thomas: And I feel like that would be fine, I think. So that's why I'm leaning toward D. I think the contract is an option, essentially, to buy it. And as long as he accepts it during that time period, then, uh, then it's good. I, I'm gonna go with D. So it's between C and D, I'm going with D. I don't even know if we need the coin. It has become meaningless at this point, Andrew. I don't, should we retire the coin, or do we still need the coins the coin serving any purpose right we'll leave the option if it pay me ten dollars I'll leave the action for a coin open all right, well, it's not so hard to flip a coin. Here we go. So does the coin agree or disagree? The coin. So the coin is with me. The only reason I mentioned it too is because last week I didn't even get second chance. And you can't count it against the coin if I don't even give the coin the chance to choose the right option. So I don' t know.

1:06:33 Andrew: Let's, let's poll our patrons, we'll keep the, uh, keep the coin for now. Poll our patreons and yeah we'll leave the option open there you go oh

1:07:02 Thomas: So I choose D and the coin chooses D and my other option was C. So there you go.

1:07:01 Andrew: Yeah that's a good point All right, and if you'd like to play along with Thomas, you know how to do that, just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag T3BE, include your guests, your reasons therefore, we will pick a winner and shower that winner with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and, unfortunately, not guaranteed.

1:07:19 Thomas: And now a quick thanks to our new patrons. Just a couple this week on patreon.com/law. And by the way, again, that lot awful murders, that's going to be really interesting analysis that I think you're going to want to hear. But thank you to 2FabulousAnkleBracelets, Oh No! Our SCOTUS. It's Broken..., Nicole Staun, and Would you rather fight 10 corgi-sized hippos or 1 hippo-sized corgi? What do you think? 10 corgisized hippos or one hippo sized corgi.

1:07:46 Andrew: Oh, I'm in on one hippo-sized corgi because that would just be so adorable.

1:07:51 Thomas: Ooh you know what's funny, I was going the other way because the 10 corgi-sized hippos, I feel like that would also be adorable, these little tiny hippos running around, you know, I think it's adorable all around either way, it's a win-win proposition I think I think you would just fall over and just splat, like it couldn't even exist, so I'll fight that any Day, all right, and that's our show. Thanks so much for listening. Andrew packed a lot in there, as always, such good, good information. Looking forward to Lot Awful Murderers, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Look for that early next week. And we'll see you on Tuesday. By the way, on Tuesday, some pop law with Morgan Stringer. Always a big draw. Always, always a lot of fun. So tune in for Tuesday's show. If you're a patron, Sunday night. We'll see then.

1:08:03 Andrew: Fair enough. Good point. What about one hipposized mosquito?

1:08:15 Andrew: Hey,

1:08:40 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.

1:09:14 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.