OA567: Pop-Law! Cardi B Wins Defamation Suit Against Worst Person on Earth

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

0:01:24 Andrew: I am fantastic, Thomas, I am excited I get to learn who who Cardi B is this episode. So I'm really looking forward to that

0:01:30 Thomas: Yeah, me too. We can be fellow boomers in spirit. Can't wait. We're gonna have a young person teach us about Cardi B.

0:01:35 Andrew: It's gonna be great. You

0:01:41 Thomas: Well, before we get to that... you wanted to tell us a little bit about the Missouri bill?

0:01:47 Andrew: I have a detailed breakdown of Missouri Senate Bill 666. This has been made public by congressional Democratic candidate Lindsey Simmons. I want to clarify, um, she is running for the House of Representatives, right? She's she's running for federal office, but this is a state law, uh, that is being proposed in Missouri. Uh, Lindsey, also HLS class of '15, so, you know, shout out to her. I'm going to say this very, very briefly: this is an unbelievably terrible law. Everything you were reading about it is likely correct.

0:02:21 Thomas: Yeah, for example, Washington Post headline, Missouri Republican lawmaker pushes gun bill that would, quote, make murder legal, prosecutors say.

0:02:30 Andrew: It, that is not far wrong from the inference. So this is being touted and Mark and McCloskey, you remember the St. Louis couple that you know, stood on their lot, right? Like he testified in favor of this bill. Um, this is not a Mccluskey bill, I will explain this when we break it down. This actually makes it slightly harder to prove self-defense on your personal property, in your house, in your car, in somebody else's house, this is something nobody else has talked about. Um, but it makes it way easier to to quote prove self-defence anywhere else. That means in public. So the way to think about this is this is a Kyle Rittenhouse bill. This is designed to make it easier to not just easier to presume in favor of self-defense when you shoot somebody in public.

0:02:40 Thomas: Oh, God. Huh.

0:03:19 Thomas: Well, finally, the car dealerships will be safe, Andrew. I've been really worried about them.

0:03:23 Andrew: It it it's it's terrifying. I also want to tell you, it is very, very early, right? That's not to say don't sound the alarm, uh, this has been referred to the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Public Safety Committee. They have held one hearing, and like I said, uh, Mark McCloskey testified at that hearing uh two days ago. There will likely be additional hearings. It will have to get voted out of committee. It has to go to the full state Senate, then to the General Assembly, then get signed into law by the governor. And I know what you're thinking. Isn't Missouri overwhelmingly Republican? They are really badly so. 24-10 in the Senate, 114-48 in the General Assembly, Republican governor. But because this bill is is so bad, lots of traditionally Republican groups have already come out against it.

0:04:12 Andrew: Prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Missouri Sheriffs United, the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police, the St. Louis Police Officers Association. So we're going to watch. We're goingto break this down in full detail so that you know if it crops up again. But not a law. It will never be a federal law. It will probably not be a Missouri law. But you are right to be outraged about it. And a big thank you seriously to Lindsay Simmons. And good luck. She's got an uphill climb that Missouri four is a two to one Republican district. But, but she's doing great work.

0:04:49 Thomas: Wow. Well more on that later. But in the meantime, we've got to get Morgan Stringer, Ace Associate, back on the line for some pop law, Cardi B edition.

0:04:59 Clip: Actually, I was going to stay in my office tonight and work on my law blog. Of course, the Bob Loblaw Law Blog. Wow. You, sir, are a mouthful.

0:05:07 Thomas: And back on the show by popular demand, it's ace associate Morgan Stringer for some pop law. How you doing, Morgan?

0:05:14 Morgan: I'm doing great how are y'all

0:05:16 Thomas: We just have a WAP over here for Cardi B Which I think means a wonderful Andrew podcast is what it means for no We want to hear all about Cardi b mostly Cassandra, and I don't know anything about Cardie B We invited a young person who you might be the same age as me. I don't remember, but effectively at Spirit, you're the young person here to explain to us boomers what's going on with Cardi B.

0:05:21 Andrew: There you there you go

0:05:21 Morgan: So Right, so, um, listener Alex also suggested this topic, but I had been following it since I'd heard the verdict, um, had not been following as it was unfolding, um, but yeah, so tell me, what, what do you know about Cardi B? Oh,

0:06:01 Andrew: She sued someone for deaf oh, no, not that, law, the law stuff, I know some law stuff, but, um, if you're asking what I know about Cardi B as a performer, uh, I know the law stuff. Yeah.

0:06:12 Thomas: And I know that Ben Shapiro is a huge fan of her work. That's all I know.

0:06:16 Andrew: Nice.

0:06:17 Morgan: Yes yes so that's probably where um most listeners will know her from because because the conservatives lost their damn entire minds when her song WAP came out with Megan Thee Stallion. So Cardi B's actual name is Belcalis Marlenis Alamanzar. She is actually four days older than me. So yeah, or no, I'm actually four day older than her.

0:06:41 Morgan: But yeah, so she was a stripper that had a really big following on Instagram and Vine, which Vine was an app that was kind of like what TikTok is today. Day. And it was amazing that it went away. And then now there's TikTok now. So she was cast in VH1's reality show, Love and Hip Hop New York, and then she left to pursue music. And when she got signed to onto a big label, she comes out with a song, Bodak Yellow, and it's a huge hit. It was, you know, one of the songs of a summer of 2017. It goes diamond. She wins two Grammys.

She actually has her, she only has one album out technically, and It's Actually Called Invasion of privacy which you'll see why it's very funny in a minute and it's a massive hit both in terms of popularity and critics love it so she's released a few more songs she's been in a few films she was in Hustlers of Jennifer Lopez making a brief cameo appearance and she's also going to be in the next Fast and Furious movie so she is a pop culture icon she's known for her fashion she's known, you know, just being around.

0:06:41 Andrew: Oh, yeah.

0:06:51 Thomas: Wow.

0:07:46 Morgan: She's done for her social media as well. She's gone on Instagram live with Bernie Sanders. Yeah, she's everywhere.

0:07:52 Andrew: So what you're saying is Thomas and I are more out of touch than Bernie Sanders.

0:07:55 Thomas: Oh, absolutely. 100%.

0:07:56 Andrew: Okay.

0:07:58 Morgan: Yeah, Bernie knows what's up.

0:07:59 Thomas: I think I could have picked Her out of a lineup. Up I just don't know any of the music. And uh, Confirmed.

0:07:59 Andrew: All right. Yeah, yeah, yeah!

0:08:04 Thomas: Uh, Morgan is quite a bit younger than, than me as well, so we're both the old guys on this podcast. Uh, no, she sounds like a, a real hard worker, real, like, genius a for promotion, you know. She's got a million things going on.

0:07:59 Morgan: So, oh yeah, She does have, she has a lot going on. And she's also very likable. Even people who don't necessarily like her music like her. Because she is very much a, you now, she is an open, very genuine seeming person.

0:08:21 Thomas: Yeah

0:08:27 Andrew: I like that she made Ben Shapiro lose his goddamn mind, so that's all right in my book.

0:08:32 Thomas: Points for that uh

0:08:33 Morgan: Oh, yeah. Yeah, exactly. She she does things like that. And she'll come come at people on Instagram live. It's all kinds of fun. So there's this other woman. She goes by Tasha K. Her name is Latasha KB. She is a YouTuber and sort of an influencer. She has a she had a channel called Unwind with Tasha K. It's still up, but she's based out of Atlanta and she started this channel in about 2015. So she does pop culture stuff, she talks a lot of celebrity gossip, does interviews, and she has about a million subscribers, like 993,000 about 300,000 followers on Instagram so basically Cardi B what she did was she sued Tasha Kay for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy, false light.

0:09:18 Thomas: Let's away I think listeners, and I stand in for the listener, non-lawyer here, we've had the experience of on this show talking about defamation, any of those sort of suits. For a famous person to win, the burden, if I remember right, lawyers, is quite high for a famous person to winning anything like that, right?

0:09:18 Andrew: Oh

0:09:34 Morgan: Yes, it's reckless disregard or malice, and that comes from New York Times v. Sullivan, which the judge in this case, Judge William Ray II, he determined that when they moved, Cardi B's legal team moved for summary judgment. He said that they would have have to, they would have to clear that bar, so you know you don't get much more of public figure than Cardi B, so which they knew that going in, but um, so Tasha K, she has an interview with a woman on her YouTube channel, this woman's name is Star Marie Jones, and she claimed that she lived and worked with Cardi B back when Cardi B was a, was a dancer. So Jones claims that Cardi B would have sex for money, she used coke and Molly, she has herpes. This video gets four and a half million million views.

0:09:38 Thomas: There you go.

0:10:17 Thomas: Andrew,

0:10:17 Morgan: For context, Tasha Kay's previous video had gotten about 220,000. So, huge jump. So, immediately, Cardi B becomes aware of this. Her attorneys send a cease and desist letter, she keeps going. I do not understand why she kept doing this. So Tasha K doubles down, and she even escalates it and keeps, you know, making those same claims, but then also adds in, oh yeah, and she would prefer perform, um, I will quote from one of the motions, lewd acts with beer bottles, um, on stage, uh,

0:10:50 Thomas: That's spin the bottle. She played spin the bottle.

0:10:51 Andrew: Oh okay yeah, so did I. So, uh, usually what happens in these kinds of cases, to help set up an argument of knowing falsity, right, to meet the New York Times standard, is the cease and desist letter will lay, lay out sort of the actual truth. Right. And we'll give you some basis for believing, like, OK, I have a, I have a supposed eyewitness that says I saw her doing X. You here's what actually happened over that time and why you should just, discount the the eyew witness. How was, was the cease and desist letter, uh, of handled in this case?

0:10:52 Thomas: Yeah.

0:11:28 Morgan: I don't know the contents of the cease and desist letter but I do know they sent three because she kept um putting them up even during the lawsuit suit. I'm not even kidding. I do not understand. During the lawsuit, there was a, yeah, it was bonkers to the point where Cardi B did admit this on the stand. She went on Instagram Live and said, "I'm going to take all your effing bread," which basically was like, I'm gonna sue the hell out of you, which they tried to make this into a thing of like, oh, she was scared of Cardi B because Tasha K did make a countersuit for defamation saying, well, Cardi's saying that that I'm making up sources and also she has these gang affiliations and I'm scared that people are going to come after me and all these people are sending me messages on Instagram. So she sued also for assault and for intentional infliction of emotional distress and what Judge Ray pointed out was, okay, well that's not Cardi B doing those things and

0:11:33 Andrew: Hmm yeah right

0:11:37 Thomas: Wow. Chasing those subs, you know, it's a YouTube's time. Gotta get those subscriber numbers up.

0:12:28 Morgan: Also, she hasn't directed anybody to to do that on her behalf, you know, if she had, then we'd be in a different, having you a different conversation. But then also, Cardi B's not in the same proximity because the suit was actually filed with the Northern District of Georgia in the Atlanta division because that, like I said, listeners will note, the defamer here, Tasha Kay, she is based out of Atlanta. So they had jurisdiction there. I'm

0:12:52 Andrew: That's an interesting decision, right? Because you've got two folks, uh, both of whom are probably, you know, meet the test of public figures, right? Even Even Tasha K, you know, is not internationally known rapper, but, you know, a million subs on your YouTube channel is probably a public figure material to me. And both of whom are probably subject to personal jurisdiction kind of anywhere in the United States, right? Like if you're making your money off of YouTube, there's a very, very good good argument that you have, you, you're engaged in interstate commerce in, you know, anywhere where somebody, you know, is downloading your content. So interesting choice to go kind of no doubt about it to her home turf. I mean, that really, uh, it gives some weight to the, you, it, I gotta, I gotta take all your, all your money. You You know,

0:13:40 Morgan: Going to take all your bread.

0:13:40 Andrew: I could take all your bread. There you go. Well, that's that's how you back that up. That's how You back those words up with a lot legal action.

0:13:46 Morgan: It is. And also Tasha Kay, she eventually did drop those counterclaims for defamation. And then, like I said, on motion for summary judgment, the judge just dismissed out all of her other counterc claims because there's nothing left. Then they end up going to trial. And I don't understand. So Tasha Kay's attorney, was a criminal defense attorney. And what makes sense to me, I guess, is that this is probably a lawyer that she had used before, right? Somebody that she was familiar with. I think she did the best she could, probably in the circumstances she was in, as I'm about to explain. So this was a video that was posted prior to the motion for summary judgment, punishment. So during the lawsuit, and here are a, uh, some quotes that I've had to clean up so you don't clown horn me every other word.

0:13:58 Andrew: Yeah.

0:14:32 Thomas: We We can use the bleep. That might be more fun.

0:14:34 Andrew: Yeah,

0:14:35 Morgan: Mean I can go for it you know What's funny, I make up stories out of thin air. I just make up studies. I knew the shit was fake, I knew they was motherfucking fake. I told Kyle, I'm gonna put that bullshit out anyway, I knew it was fake, I still made that shit go motherfucking viral. Okay, if you continue to send me fake stories on you, I'm going to air them as they are, ho, so keep sending me the lies and I'm gonna keep putting them the out, bitch. Yeah.

0:14:36 Thomas: It's up to you.

0:14:38 Andrew: I

0:15:01 Thomas: Is that a bad document, Andrew?

0:15:03 Andrew: Mean, you know, I'm no lawyer, but that, that is, I, I had a bit that I was going to come in with, with, you know, Tasha K using, you the cut rate criminal defense lawyer and whatever, but nope, uh, this is now, like, I feel bad for Mr. for Mr. Cut Rate Terminal Defense, like, when your client does that in the middle of your defamation lawsuit. Uh, I've had client, I've had intransigent clients, right, I've heard of that, would not do what I told them to do on very basic levels. I've had clients that, you know, lied to my face after I did the, like, "Let's try this for the fourth time, you can tell me anything," right, like as I'm explaining attorney claim privilege, but I've, uh, never had one, uh, basically allocute to all of the elements Of the uh tort with which they are being charged, that's, uh, that's something. Yeah.

0:15:51 Thomas: Yeah.

0:15:58 Morgan: That is, in you know, that's crazy to me, so I don't understand, and again, I don't know the dynamics here, if Tasha K was just stubborn, because I assume that as her attorney, I would come begging on my hands and knees, and, you know, I would tell my client, "All right, you're gonna have to get your checkbook out, it's gonna hurt," but, you know, it's better than going to trial because it's going to be bad, and I don't enjoy getting my teeth kicked in, which is exactly what happened.

0:16:24 Andrew: So was this, was this a bench trial or a jury trial?

0:16:25 Morgan: No This was a jury trial, and when they were doing jury selection, because I was trying to find things, you know, Tasha Kay is saying she's going, going to file an appeal and all this stuff, they actually dismissed anybody who was a fan of cardi b oh

0:16:38 Thomas: Had a wet ass pussy. Oh, I'm going to bleep that out. They ask the question, you see like 14 people get up and go.

0:16:46 Andrew: Yeah.

0:16:44 Morgan: My god uh Yeah, they did dismiss anybody who, was even if they said things like, "Yeah, but it wouldn't affect my opinion you know one way or another," And also, they actually just missed out a juror who said he didn't like rap music at all and hated it, because they thought, you know, he might be a little bit more prejudicial towards Cardi B. So they were very careful in this jury selection, so I don't think anything like that's going to come up

0:17:11 Thomas: Yeah. But could you have been like, yes, I hate rap music, but I also hate YouTubers. So, you know, like evens out.

0:17:20 Morgan: I think they would I think that would be dismissed probably anyway but um as You'll see there were some other, um, interesting things that happened with this jury. But let's talk about Tasha K on the stand, um. Do I, I imagine y'all all probably do not think it went well, um, so and it didn't. So as much as a trial, and especially pre-trial, you know, before you get to that point, is very much about the law, this is also, I think, a story about likability and how much good witnesses can really impact your case. She did not have a good, good time on the stand because, as I said, you know, there's some jury things here. So one of the jurors actually had to be excused because she commented, commented negatively, in the juror room, about a profanity-ridden video that they played of Tasha Kay, where she's drinking wine in her video during the day, yelling at her kid, who's in the next room doing schoolwork remotely.

0:17:24 Thomas: Uh Oh.

0:17:31 Andrew: So

0:18:10 Morgan: And she's using, you know, this profane language. And there's a child, you Know, in the Next Room doing, I guess, her Zoom homework. And the jurors was, you know, commenting on how horrible that was in the jury room. And so that juror did get excused. And Judge Ray explained to the jury and everybody, it has nothing to do with, you you know, your feelings about that? Or are you feeling one type of way about the case or that evidence or that person at that point? How you feel is how you feel once you're viewing the evidence,

0:18:10 Thomas: Huh

0:18:35 Andrew: Maybe this information isn't available. Right. Obviously, you're cobbling together from various sources. But I'm a little curious as to how that unfolded. Right. Like how, number one, that the video got played in the first place. Number two, how the judge was aware sort of of what was going on in the jury box.

0:18:55 Morgan: Yes. So they're playing this video as evidence. So Cardi B's team would often play snippets because they're trying to get the point across. You know, these are the claims upon which we are suing. Tasha K's defense team, I think they probably have the strategy of maybe it'll look better in context, because what else could we do? So they just played the whole thing, and so that's how these videos were viewed in evidence and

0:19:05 Andrew: Uh

0:19:20 Thomas: Wow

0:19:17 Andrew: I see okay so When you first were describing it, I thought they just picked some other video in which Tasha K is yelling at her kids, and I'm standing there thinking, well, that seems to be impermissible character evidence, I wonder how they got it in. But you were saying it was all part of the, or one of, the defamatory Cardi B videos. And it was actually Tasha K's team that said, no, well, you got to see the whole context. And the whole.

0:19:44 Thomas: Yeah you know what'll add more context is the part where she yells at her kid or whatever

0:19:49 Andrew: Oh, God. So do I have that right?

0:19:52 Morgan: Now I'm not sure which side was playing, um, that part of the video necessarily, but I do know that Tasha Kay's defense team, um, from what I was seeing from somebody that was in the courtroom, they were saying I don't know that it was a good idea for them to play the videos in the entirety, but also. So, you know, what else are you going to do? And they think that really backfired. But yes, how the judge found out was another juror ended up sending a note to the judge informing him. And that's when she was excused.

And there almost was another dismissal because one of the jurors actually was having COVID-19 symptoms. And, you know, the judge polled everybody individually. And because this person was vaccinated and asked, you Now, are you comfortable with continuing? And everybody said yes because basically they, they were almost done. So, yeah, this, this is not a great sign though, because you have a juror who's obviously disgusted with his behavior to the point where she's publicly comment, you know, she's commenting in the juror room, which shows she had to know everybody else was feeling that type of way as well. And

0:20:05 Thomas: Yeah yeah

0:20:09 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:20:48 Andrew: Yeah, the people who remain on the jury are the ones who were smart enough not to say I agree with you um

0:20:52 Thomas: Please

0:20:49 Morgan: Yes. Until the end but she was saying things on the stand um and they were playing you know these snippets of videos uh cardi b's team

0:20:55 Andrew: Right so

0:21:00 Thomas: Tell me she yelled at her kid from the stand while the kid was like trying to do the homework in the background

0:21:02 Morgan: Oh no I you know I would not be shocked at this point because

0:21:09 Andrew: Great

0:21:11 Thomas: Yeah we don't know that that didn't happen This show is brought to you by Green Chef. Oh, folks, I love Green Chef so much. We just enjoyed three delicious meals from Green Chef this week. Every one of them was great. Healthy, interesting, and? Green Chef is a CCOF-certified meal kit company. Green Chef makes eating well easy with plans to fit every lifestyle, whether you're keto, paleo, vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, or just looking to eat more balanced meals. Green Chef offers a range of recipes to suit your preferences. Find that for us, we don't have that want or need, the amount bandwidth we want or needs to plan out and carry out regular, interesting vegetarian vegetarian meals. That's just something that, we don't have the bandwidth for it. We both work a lot. And so for, if you're like us, if You're kind of rushed, if you've got, you Know, you got both got jobs, you've Got kids, you're worrying about having someone like green chef, take care of that for you.

0:22:02 Thomas: It is a game changer. I'm telling you, because each and every week we get delicious meals that are healthy, that are interesting, that are different, that we didn't have to plan. We Green Chef is also the most sustainable meal kit. That's because Green Chef's pre-portioned ingredients mean you'll actually reduce your food waste by at least 25% to compared grocery shopping. This. This is my favorite part.

Not having that wasted food, that thing we bought we bought too much of not enough of or that sits in the fridge because we didn't use all of it and then it just rots and then we throw it away. I hate that. Not with Green Chef. With Green Chef, they give you everything you need in the amount you need it. You cook it, it's delicious, and then you're done. A bunch of waste afterward. So I can't recommend it enough. Try Green Chef.

You will absolutely enjoy it. It will change your life. It'll make it so much easier to have delicious dinners each and every week. Go to greenchef.com/OA130 and use code OA130 to get $130 off plus free shipping. That's greenchef.com/OA130 for $130 plus free shipping. Go to greenchef.com/OA130. Use that promo code. Chef, the number one meal kit for eating well. This show's brought to you by X chair.

I love my work, but sometimes I dread sitting down at my desk, or at least I used to before I got my X chair, you know, that if you've heard me do these ads before now, thanks to my X share, I actually look forward to sitting in my office because my body feels so much more supported and comfortable for real. You peek behind the curtain. We record two episodes at once, all the ads, all The extras, They go way longer than you think because I because edit them down nicely.

0:23:38 Thomas: So I spent a lot of time sitting in this very chair, this exact chair that I'm telling you about right now. And I'm comfortable the whole time. Honestly, I never even have a problem because the X chair is that good. And more comfort means more productivity. Helping the X share pay for itself. Thanks to how much more work you're able to get done every day. And if I'm feeling tired or stressed, I just turn on my LMX massage feature and choose from four different massage options. Can't do that during recording. You guys might hear that, but you know, editing. If and if my studio is running either too hot or too cold—always too hot because it's California and there's a lot of machinery in here—I just flip on the LMAX temperature regulation, either heat or cool at my lower back. 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.

0:24:25 Thomas: Take my advice. Try X-Share for yourself, risk-free for 30 days. Once you realize how much better your chair should be, you'll never go back. I promise. So go to xchairoa.com now. That's the letter X, chairoa.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. xchairoa.com.

0:24:55 Morgan: Yeah, so she kept saying in these videos that they're playing, it's a business. You want that shit shut down on my platform, you pay for that. I don't give a if there's a gag order and I Don't gave a fuck about Cardi B's feelings, and she said, "Bitch, you are my content." And Tasha K even, even admitted on the stand that she would bring up Cardi B to drive traffic and views, even when the videos were not about Cardi D. Because she found that she was driving more traffic.

0:25:04 Thomas: My god oh wow god

0:25:21 Andrew: Some something we would never do in covering this lawsuit suit

0:25:25 Thomas: This is the dumbest universe universe code red from a few good men, like dumb my

0:25:28 Andrew: That's

0:25:25 Morgan: Yes. Yes. She even told the jurors that she thought it was funny to say that people had STIs, including AIDS, especially if people became infected through reckless behavior. Behavior.

0:25:42 Thomas: God. Did we find the worst person? Have we found the worst person? Like of all people? I think we did.

0:25:48 Morgan: Don't understand what happened. If I was a defense attorney, I would trip and fall. I would pop an Alka-Seltzer in my mouth and pretend I was having a seizure. Like, I would do literally anything. And I just, I do not understand what happened here. It was like, she just showed up and decided to be like, "I choose chaos and violence," even against to my own detriment, which I don't understand this. And then also she kept saying to Cardi B's attorneys to just be difficult, "I don't know" or "I don't understand what you're asking" to be to very basic questions, which it was very apparent to everybody in courtroom you know what they were asking. And she would just be like, "I don't know" orI don't understand what you're asking." So I, again, I'm not sure what the strategy was there, if there was any, because I think this, this is a case of where she probably felt like, "I'm not going to settle."

0:25:53 Thomas: Yeah.

0:26:39 Morgan: You know, I'm going to put up my content and be completely unapologetic about it. And also, I think maybe this attorney felt like, well, malice is a high bar. But I mean, she cleared it.

0:26:48 Andrew: Not that high yeah

0:26:48 Thomas: But, but you, You leapt 100 feet over that bar.

0:26:53 Andrew: Yeah right

0:26:53 Morgan: Yeah, which again, it's I don't know if this has to do with the fact that this attorney, because I have consulted on defamation cases before, the the standard is malice or reckless disregard of the truth, which clearly, and I mean, in that video that she had uploaded during the litigation, she checked those boxes off. I mean, if that was a law school exam, it'd be too easy.

0:27:14 Andrew: Yeah.

0:27:14 Morgan: So malice is actually it's not that it's impossible it's just harder that doesn't mean it can't be reached well

0:27:21 Andrew: Right. Yes.

0:27:14 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, right. Just to go back to the introduction here. So it's still very true that this is a high bar. It's just this person is an astronaut.

0:27:30 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, an Olympic pole vaulter. It, it, it also explains and I, I, uh, I apologize for, for what's now an unfair question. Uh, let me unpack it a little bit. The actual malice standard that you're talking about, I know you know this, Morgan, I'm explaining it for for the listeners. Yeah, is knowing falsity, right? It doesn't mean I hate you.

0:27:31 Thomas: Yeah.

0:27:45 Thomas: For me, yeah. Yeah.

0:27:51 Andrew: It means I know this is false and I'm saying it anyway, which the, the law then implies, uh, the law says, you know, yes, from that we will infer that you must hate a person in order to intentionally, intentionally spread falsehoods about them. So one of the ways in which you demonstrate actual malice, right, knowing falsity, is by saying, okay, we've now told you the truth, and if you continue to publish something, we can now prove that you know that it's a lie. I had asked that question of you, Morgan, before realizing that she put out a video before the trial entitled "My Confession" that says, "I know all of this is a lot." Like, usually you don't get that gift wrapped, uh, to you by the uh by the other side. Oh, good

0:28:29 Thomas: Yeah.

0:28:38 Morgan: They had other statements that were similar where she was, she was talking to other people saying, you know, I don't know if this woman, the star, Marie Jones, is telling the truth, you know, but I'm gonna put that up anyway, which, which again, that's, um, you know, reckless disregard, which would be enough for you, know, Georgia, even but with a, with a public figure standard, but but I did want to talk about cardi b's testimony which which cardi b is a legal genius let me just say legal genius I

0:28:54 Andrew: Yep, yep Yep. Ooh.

0:29:07 Thomas: Counterargument, even I could have won this case.

0:29:09 Morgan: Mean But I think she did a good job of explaining, you know, because you see a celebrity in court and they're, you know, suing for all this money, and I can see where that would be kind of hard for somebody, right? You know, why should I write you out a check for a million dollars or Cardi B? Come on, like, or or even I could see where possibly people would say, oh, well, it's just, you know, criticism, you're a celebrity, get over it, you know, kind of thing.

0:29:12 Andrew: Yeah. Right.

0:29:33 Morgan: But I think that she did a really great job of explaining, okay, what is Cardi B all about? Because again, these jurors don't, they're not fans of hers. Why would it be offensive to label her with these kinds of allegations and how it affected her? So she explained how she, her backstory, how she grew up poor in the Bronx, and she was working at a grocery store, but it was suggested by a friend that she auditioned at a strip club, she got the job, and then she, she made more money in one night than she would make five days at the grocery store. So then she used that money to further her actual passion, which was her music. And she also was able to really connect to how these defamatory statements affected her and what she did as soon as she became aware of them, which is what she reached out to Tasha K, actually, in a private message.

0:30:20 Morgan: And Tasha TK admits to all of this and told her, hey, this stuff is false. I don't know this woman. Yes, she works at the same club I worked at. But I don't know this woman. And so Tasha Kay said, oh, well, why don't you come on my show and discuss it? And she said, no, I'm not doing that. I just want you to know that this is false. And of course she said that because she wanted Cardi B to come onto her show and Cardi B said, No, it's the same reason why Dr. Fauci doesn't go on the Joe Rogan experience, right? Right.

0:30:33 Andrew: Yeah. Right. Right.

0:30:48 Morgan: So it's just would be a complete waste of her time. And why why would you do that? It's it's insane. Cardi B also explained that she still gets called herpes B, which is what Tasha K would call her a lot of her videos. She said, I don't think I I have thin skin for criticism, but I have skin for outrageous lies.

0:30:35 Thomas: God. Yeah. Oh, wow. Well, and isn't venereal disease, that's got to be one of those de facto thingies, right? I mean, right.

0:31:10 Andrew: Yep. Yep.

0:31:15 Morgan: Yes, it is.

0:31:16 Andrew: The language in the restatement of torts is accusing someone of having quote, a loathsome disease yep right

0:31:23 Thomas: Yeah, that is what, sorry, I had the wrong word. I was trying to remember what word it was. Yeah low some disease.

0:31:27 Morgan: Yeah, I love the old-timey, like when you can tell something was written in the 1920s, such as some of the divorce statutes.

0:31:32 Andrew: Yeah

0:31:30 Thomas: Yeah and applying that to Cardi B is is hilarious hmm

0:31:35 Andrew: Do

0:31:36 Morgan: Yeah, there's one that's, you know, yeah, you can divorce your husband if he becomes a lunatic. And I'm just like, what? We're still using that word, okay. Okay. Yeah. But then she testified two days, I believe it was. So she also did a great job of connecting again, Tasha K's actions with the damages, right? Because you have to prove up the damages. So you talked about how she was depressed, how she had panic attacks, increased anxiety, weight fluctuations, problems with her personal relationship, migraines. And she even broke down on the stand and said she felt extremely suicidal and that she had never felt like that throughout her entire life, that she, you know, she'd had a hard life growing up. She, you know, experienced poverty, abuse, homelessness, but she said, I've never felt suicidal before, and that she went and she went to see a therapist about it. And when she was asked about, you know, what you felt about, you know, Tasha K doing this.

0:31:42 Thomas: Great

0:32:33 Morgan: She said I felt like only a demon could do that shit to which she immediately said basically, I'm sorry for cussing in court, which again just endears you to the jury right because you're being genuine, you're, you know, showing this emotion and she also was pregnant with her daughter culture at the time when Tasha K was saying things like she's a coke user, she's got herpes, all all these things. And Cardi said that I believe that my child was a blessing from God as, as a Catholic, but that she, she was in such a dark place that she could not enjoy that time with her daughter.

And she even spoke about how when she posted an Instagram pic of her kissing culture, there were users who had heard these rumors either from Tasha K or, you know, people just being aware of them saying, oh, is it OK for you to be kissing your daughter like that? Because don't you have herpes on her like an Instagram picture of her child? And then Cardi B's team brought out a psychologist, Dr. Blake, who is a well-known psychologist out, I believe, based out of Los Angeles. She But was able to really testify about the effects that that defamation had on Cardi G about this, about the increased anxiety, the depression, the suicidal thoughts and present that expert testimony. Testimony yeah

0:32:40 Andrew: Yeah yeah uh well I I I have one more question sort sort of as it relates to the damages portion and proving that up. Before I ask it, I want to point out that I'm really glad that you broke down her testimony. It's one of the things that I think kind of goes beyond the pop law aspect of this segment and shows that, you know, know, when you're a lawyer, even in cases where you may have 100% of the law on your side, when you're thinking about going to trial, think you about these elements, right? Like you think about like, okay, you know, how do, even if the jury agrees, easily you imagine this being a lawsuit in which all of those jurors were like, well, I hate everyone in this courtroom. Room.

0:34:36 Andrew: Um, and, uh, you know, yeah, okay. Uh, you know, Tasha K defamed Cardi B, but you know, the hell with all of them, we're going to give out, you know, kind of nominal damages, uh, and then, you know, wash our hands and be done with it, right? Like you have to, you have to be thinking about like what, how does my client come off here? You know, what does, what is the jury thinking? Um, you know, how do we convince them, you know, like you said to, uh, how do you, how do you convince 12 ordinary people to have one person write a seven figure check to a multimillionaire famous person? You know, and that's, that's a harder task. Right. It's, it's a thing that we think about as lawyers. So I really, I really love that you broke that down.

0:35:21 Andrew: Of the ways that I am sort of thinking about the way I would attack it is, and this, I think, has repercussions for some of the larger political defamation lawsuits that we've talked about. Right. Is to say, yeah, OK, my client, part of the group that, know, you spread these kinds of ugly rumors about herpes or what have you, but you, those then took on a life of their own, right, and here's, I'm going to introduce a million other sources. So, you know, when somebody makes that comment or she's suffering because of it, that's not directly attributable to what my client did, unless you can prove that, you know, my client was the source of the rumor, which presumably you can't prove that. Um, do you know sort of how they got around that, that causality, right, because that's to me that's the, the, the biggest kind of stumbling block in tying together the specific action here and the damages that resulted from it.

0:36:23 Morgan: So what they, filed this lawsuit, right, and then I think that was kind of one of the defenses, right? It was that, well, also saying, by Cardi B responding to me, you know, that's driving views to my channel, so that's her fault, right? She's compounding these damages. And they did try a defense like that. But would you be surprised there's a tape and where, you know, somebody she is saying, you what are the source of you saying that Cardi B has herpes and things like that?

And she said, you know, this interview with star Marie Jones and Which she has said, she said that she had had no reason to believe, but in later videos said, oh, she showed me things that proved it and everything, you know, things of that nature. But one of the things that they actually did here was they submitted Cardi B's herpes um and HPV test into the um, into the court. It was in camera, and basically the judge, what he, what he said was, I did not find it helpful to the defendant, which Means that test was negative. So yeah, I mean it they basically she even says in that clip star marie jones was the source of

0:36:29 Andrew: Right Right. Right yeah Right. Right. Hmm.

0:37:39 Morgan: These allegations and she was the one that kept hyping this up and hyping this up

0:37:43 Thomas: Well was that person also a defendant here or

0:37:45 Morgan: So here's the thing they she was named as a co-defendant in the first complaint and then later on when they amended the complaint complaint her name was dropped and then they added um Tasha K and then her LLC Keep Studios I believe Keep Studios LLC but they dropped Star Marine Jones and I was only able to find one source and it was kind of you sketchy so I don't know it was you know a gossip blog basically that said a default judgment had been um issued against Star Marine Jones in the state of New York yeah

0:38:14 Andrew: Yeah. And that would have been my guess is that YouTuber is monetizing. Natasha Kay is monetising it. That's a judgment is valuable against that person. And if Star Marie Jones, you has no money, it doesn't it make sense to complicate your case by having her in there. Um you a Right, exactly right. And so a good analog of that is, um, the Alex Jones Sandy Hook lawsuits, right? And it actually kind of followed the same path.

Um, he had a, uh, Alex Jones had a purported expert on, uh, named Halbig, uh, I forget his first name, uh, who was a crazy person, right, you know, an Alex Jones special witness, um, but Halbig was the source for all of the ridiculous claims of like, well, you know, here's how, if you, if you slow the video down, like, you can see, you know, this is how you know that they're a crisis actor, blah blah blah, and and that that exact pattern transpired, no right sense, adding, how Big, the only reason he was was ever a part of anything is because his voice was amplified by Alex Jones, and Alex Jones predictably, uh, wound up not mattering because of the default judgment of non-compliance, but predictably said, you, oh, I never said X, it was just, you know, how big who kept saying X, uh

0:38:36 Morgan: Because they would have just blamed each other Yeah.

0:39:38 Morgan: It was wolf gang I believe was his first name you know it's a crazy name for a crazy man but so I want to talk about the verdict so how much money did Uh, Cardi B get? Uh, probably she's gonna be able to buy herself a new Birkin bag because one, she was found liable for both defamation and invasion of privacy, and both herself personally and her entity, um, Keep Studios, because one of the allegations that I didn't really want to get into, 'cause it's, you know, uh, kind of a side story is that basically her LLC is essentially a shell for her, that was, so they found them both liable for defamation and for invasion of privacy, false light. And the jury awarded $1 million dollars in general damages, 250,000 in medical expenses, that was for a total of $1,250,000 but then the parties met and they agreed to reduce those medical expenses to $1,025,000 so I mean,

0:39:38 Andrew: So uh yeah yeah wolf wolf gang how big yes exactly yeah sure

0:40:38 Morgan: It's not a huge reduction there, but you know, say, saves you a little bit of cash. And I hadn't seen that in any of the other reporting, so breaking news. They also awarded her legal expenses that because Georgia law allows you to do that, um, it allows you find for punitive and for, um, legal expenses as well, uh, because if you act, in basically the standard is, did you act bad faith, you can get legal expenses. And then the standard for punative is, of course, you know, if you acted with malice or reckless disregard. It's essentially to dissuade a person from engaging in that kind of behavior, punitive being, you know, punishing.

0:40:44 Andrew: Breaking right I

0:41:15 Thomas: Brought to you by Aura. Folks, I love my Aura frame. They sent us an Aura picture frame. It's a smart digital picture frame that makes it easy to share photos and videos of your favorite people anywhere in the world using the Aura app. They send us one of these. I love it. And here's why. It is a digital frame.

As I said, I have so many really cute pictures of the kids, like a million of them, and here's the thing, I forget about them, you know, I don't spend a lot of time looking back through, like, my Instagram posts or whatever it is, but but with this frame we put all her favorite pictures of the kid's on it, and then I'm reminded of these fantastic pictures I forgot about, because you can set the timer of how much you want to change photos, you could, you know, if make it longer, shorter, depending on how much you want to see.

I love it, it's so delightful because every time I walk in the room I see a different picture of Phoebe and Arlo, and it makes me so happy. This This is a fantastic gift and by the way, here's the thing about these Aura Frames. They tend to sell out right around the times that people typically need gifts like Mother's Day or things like that. So get one now, Now, get it at a discount for the next time you need to give somebody a really well thought out gift. Let me tell you more about it. Each frame comes beautifully packaged and ready to gift.

You can even personalize it with a special note and cherish memories for a heartwarming surprise when when your Recipient sets it up, which only takes about two minutes. And unlike other digital frames, Aura has unlimited storage with no subscriptions or additional fees. They're not going to surprise you with some fee to have more than one photo. Nothing like that. Unlimited storage, no subscriptions or additional fees. Aura's first sale of the year is happening right now.

0:42:50 Thomas: So visit auraframes.com for a thoughtful gift that shows just how much you love them. That's A-U-R-A frames.com. And our listeners can use code OPENING to get up to $20 off the list price while last. Now through February 22nd, apply. One more time, go to AuraFrames, A-U-R-A.com and use that code opening. I love my Aura. I love getting to see different pictures of Phoebe and Arlo all the time. It's so much fun. It's a great gift. I highly recommend it. This show is brought to you by Blinkist. And Blinkrist has a new thing called 22 Ideas for 2022. 2022, and the goal is to empower people to grow personally and professionally by discovering content that inspires, motivates them, and gives them new perspectives on their lives and the world in 2022.

0:43:43 Thomas: Blinkist has the perfect content to help you be a better, smarter, and more knowledgeable you in 2022, and this is my thing about Blinkists. Look, I love reading. I read full entire books, and I don't have time to finish all the ones I need, so Blinkits is a great way to finish even more books, to get the key insights from books that, you know, that are great books. There are too many good books to read in the world. You're never going to have time to read all of them. Trust me, I tried. You don't. It's not even close. There's too many. But with Blinkist, you can get way more insights from these books than you ever would by listening to a blink of them, here's one. There's a great book called A Short History of Brexit. I've got a lot going on in the US that I'm keeping track of. I might not necessarily have time to read a bunch of books on Brexit.

0:44:28 Thomas: Maybe that's something you're into. But for me, doing Blinkist and getting the key insights from a book like A Short History of Brexit is a really cool way to still get that information, to still retain that information, but give you more time for the reading you want to do. That's just one example. There are tons of great books. Again, find the things on Blinkist that you wantto read but you don't have time to get to. Blinkist's is a great way to still know what you're talking about when it comes to those books and to still become informed by them. So right now, Blinkits has a special offer for just our audience. Go to Blinkis.com slash opening to start your free seven-day trial and get 25% off a Blinkiste premium membership. That's Blinkist, spelled B-L-I-N-K-I S-T Blinkest.com slash opening to get 25% off and a seven day free trial. One more time, Blinkast.com opening.

0:45:25 Andrew: I assume the jury returned a defense verdict on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim

0:45:25 Morgan: They, I did not see that in the final jury verdict. I do not, I do Not see the jury instructions.

0:45:31 Andrew: Could could have been dismissed out after the plaintiffs at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case in chief, like you, you typically renew a motion to dismiss at that point, um, but the the reason that I wanted to to flag that, not a verdict in Cardi B's favor, uh, because we get those questions all the time and I explain that IIED, intentional infliction of emotional distress, requires that the underlying conduct be extreme and outrageous. And people always ask, you know, well, is X extreme and outrageous? And so I'm not surprised, but I want to point out for all those listeners who are going to ask, for the next thing that comes down, is this extreme and outrageous? To point out that like going on your YouTube channel and saying a thing that you admit is a lie to make it go viral is not considered extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to trigger iad oh go ahead

0:46:01 Morgan: Yes.

0:46:26 Morgan: Well, I wouldn't say that because on the on the jury form, so I did look at the case file, there were some that were under seal. So I could not look at them. But I did see the actual, I did not see the jury instructions, but I did see the form where they check, you know, by the box, and then they write in how much money for each, each damages. So for them, the only options were defamation and invasion of privacy false light, and they checked liable on both for Tasha K and her LLC. So intentional infliction of emotional distress was nowhere on the form.

0:46:31 Andrew: Okay yeah it I absolutely, I appreciate the correction, and it's another good kind of lesson as a takeaway here. You, you are giving the absolute right lawyer answer, right, which is no, no, that that matter was not adjudicated by the jury, so I should not summarize it as saying the jury affirmatively determined, uh, that lying on your YouTube channel was not Iaad. I, I take that correction, it's an excellent one, it's it's why you're the best Associate In The world Yep, I meant it in the larger sense of that wound up not being that conduct wound up not going to the jury in whatever procedural way that developed, uh, as an IIED claim, um And so that that does give you some guidance if you were looking at future cases when you're saying what counts as extreme and outrageous conduct, like, you know, use that as a lodestar, something more obvious than what Tasha uh K did to Cardi B here.

0:47:23 Thomas: Why Well, she made Ace Associate.

0:47:37 Morgan: Yes.

0:47:52 Morgan: Well, they did find the behavior extreme because on top of that, so we're at the $1.25 for general and then $1,300,000 in legal expenses. As I was talking about punitive damages, they awarded punitive. So $1 million in punitive damages was further assessed against Tasha Kay, another $500,000 against her studio. So the jury actually awarded $4,088,753.47, but then this was reduced by agreement to $3,863,751.47. So Cardi B beat the brakes off of this woman. I would leap off a bridge if I lost in court that bad.

0:47:52 Andrew: Oh more yeah nice

0:48:20 Thomas: Wow.

0:48:38 Andrew: Morgan I I was focused in on the jury awarding 1.3 million dollars in legal fees um can we look into getting cardi b as a client uh I guess oh

0:48:44 Thomas: Yeah. Oh,

0:48:49 Morgan: I mean, she did have a team of attorneys. So a lot of this. So this case started in March 2019. So it was actually really interesting to see how COVID hit. And nobody knew what was going on because you kept seeing general order for courtroom procedures. And it would have like, oh, this thing's going to last like, what, two weeks? And then it kept getting extended and extended. I think it got extended like 10 times till finally the judge was like, indefinite, whatever, this thing will never end. And you also saw a bunch of pro hoc applications coming in. You know, these are her New York lawyers. She had local Atlanta counsel as well, but she had her big guns from New York coming in as well. So I could see how she racked up 1.3 million, even in such a basic case. And also, you know, Tasha Kay refused to settle, refused to give any grounds. But Tasha K has responded to the verdict.

0:48:52 Andrew: Okay sure wow Wow. Oh, God. Oh God.

0:48:58 Thomas: Wow. Yeah.

0:49:46 Morgan: She did not say that she was dearly sorry for all the, you know, harm that she had caused and she'd learned her lesson.

0:49:52 Thomas: Well, at this point, why bother? You already owe $3.8 million. Like, what's that going to do?

0:49:55 Morgan: Yes. So she said a few things that. I But, did watch one of her other videos where she mentioned Cardi B, but it was, you know, something about, you know, the WAP song and she was saying like how much it sucks and, you know, all that stuff. But she's just an infuriating person to listen to. And then she started going in on Megan Thee Stallion. She does this about multiple celebrities.

0:50:16 Morgan: So, yeah. So she has vowed she's going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Um yeah and she's but she said, I was thinking, you know, from a lot of the things she was saying, she was saying, "Oh, I went up against a machine that makes money off of encouraging our children to engage in promiscuity and drug use and glorifies that, and I have a right to respond like this to public figures who are pushing this degeneracy to children."

0:50:16 Andrew: So you're saying this is not a person who has learned their lesson in his contract.

0:50:24 Thomas: Oh.

0:50:24 Andrew: Sure. The Donald Trump defense. Yeah.

0:50:48 Thomas: So she's looking to crowdfund from the conservative grift, like that same angle.

0:50:51 Morgan: Well no because she said but this is this this is what I thought, right? But then she said they're not doing any fundraising because apparently a bunch of GoFundMes had popped up in her name, right, and I don't know if that's just she's saying that for now and then planning on doing something like that later.

0:51:08 Thomas: Well, why would this person have any money? I mean, having a YouTube channel with, even if you have whatever you said, 200,000 subs or a million subs, that doesn't make you millions of dollars necessarily. Like, what happens if she just doesn't have the money?

0:51:24 Morgan: Well, she does have the money because they were able, Cardi B's legal team was able to show, you know, how much more money she got from advertisers when she mentioned Cardi G in her videos.

0:51:32 Thomas: Oh, okay. Gotcha.

0:51:34 Morgan: So she was was actually making money. And then she even, there's clips of her saying, you know, this is a business. I'm doing this to make money.

0:51:34 Thomas: Gotcha.

0:51:41 Andrew: Memo to Thomas here. We need to, we need to chat here that are

0:51:42 Thomas: Well, look, you and I know YouTubers with millions of subs that don't make any money.

0:51:49 Andrew: Not making anywhere near that. Yeah,

0:51:51 Thomas: Yeah. So I don't, we'll see. Yeah. Who knows? Yeah yeah

0:51:51 Andrew: Right. Right. Yeah.

0:51:51 Morgan: Yeah. But she also, yeah, she also had an Instagram following. So I don't know if, you Know, she had 300,000 followers on Instagram. So, I'm not sure what those deals look like. So she's a little bit of an Instagram influencer as well. But she also said something that cracked me up. Two things here. She kept saying that sympathy and And payola was the verdict, which is such an interesting term to payola. But that is a weird term to us. And she also said that she took down the videos as a gesture of good faith to the courts, because I do know that they need to decide if they're the issue of an injunction. But I was thinking kind of too late, girl.

0:52:32 Morgan: You got a $4 million. Well, you got close to a $5 million verdict against you. So I don't think that's helping you now. She also said, my lawyers told me something about preserving the record. Well, this is me preserving the recorded. And I was thinking, you must not have listened because you don't, making a YouTube video is not how you preserve a record.

0:52:32 Andrew: Yeah, I think yes.

0:52:51 Morgan: That's things you object to in court so that you can later, you know, bring those issues up for appeal.

0:52:51 Thomas: Oh

0:52:56 Andrew: This is me preserving the record. I love it.

0:52:57 Morgan: Yeah, she thinks there's a conspiracy against her. And also, I did want to say there is no conspiracy, but Judge Wray a delightful decision where apparently the college football playoff national championship was on Monday when the trial started. And he had tickets to go. And he did not cancel his flight until Sunday when he was sure that this wasn't going to settle. And he seemed pretty disappointed about that. But he gave the jury Tuesday morning off so that they could stay up late and watch the Georgia Bulldogs play Alabama. And he said also because my mood will have been very affected by the outcome of that game on Tuesday morning. So I enjoyed that.

0:53:17 Andrew: Yeah. Oh, yeah.

0:53:18 Thomas: Yikes yeah you love hearing that justice might depend on uh how someone feels about their football team that's a good thing to hear about her

0:53:51 Morgan: Well, that's why he gave them that morning off, So that he wouldn't feel any type of way. Um, so I, um, I thought maybe that these, you know, because when I heard the amount of punitive damages, I thought, you know, maybe those will get reduced. And no, I don't think they will, because under Georgia law, um, disproportionality really is irrelevant because the purpose is to deter. There are certain types of, um, actions, such as products liability in Georgia, those punitive damages are capped.

But if a reasonable jury could have found the punitive damages, then they could have find them. And the 11th Circuit also, I, appellate courts in general are not fans of reversing jury awards. But particularly the 11th Circuit is not going to reverse this. And I think that there's just an issue of, know, you have an unlikable client versus somebody that's very likable, and there's only so much damage control you can do there, and I think this is groundbreaking in a way where you do have a public figure that has met the New York Times standard because other people are saying, oh, well, now we're going to see more celebrities coming after these YouTubers, these, you know, people with, make um making up stuff on Twitter for clout, you know, things of that nature, and Ithink you might have a few that try because now the standard's been met, right, but I don't think this is going to open the floodgates because as I've talked about, the facts here are very unique.

0:53:53 Thomas: Yeah

0:54:56 Andrew: Yeah.

0:55:15 Andrew: Right. Right, right. Yeah, I think that's, I think you're right on on both parts of that, right? Right. Like, so if you are a celebrity, and I infer the existence of these phone calls from my non-celebrity clients who call me all the time. Right. Like, my my clients who own restaurants who say, I want to sue for defamation for this bad, you know, Yelp review that someone left. And so I imagine that like celebrities call their lawyers and they're like, this YouTuber is making stuff up against me. And lawyers, you know, for years have said, yeah, yeah. But it's New York Times v. Sullivan. There's nothing we can do. Just, you Know, let it let it roll off you. And now, right, the celebrities can be like, no, no. No, wait, like Cardi B got four million bucks like and shut them down. And so lawyers will need to be armed with. Right. Do you know that in that one, like the the YouTuber made a video that said everything is a lie and I am engaged in defamation. Uh right

0:55:15 Morgan: Yeah

0:55:37 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:56:13 Thomas: Went bullet point Through the elements of the crime. Or

0:56:16 Morgan: It was like a lawsuit at listing

0:56:17 Andrew: I choose

0:56:17 Thomas: Whatever of the tort yeah, you know, know how you're supposed to write your resume to kind of match the bullet points of the job ad you're going for, she did that, but with the torch, she's being accused of, yeah.

0:56:18 Morgan: Oh,

0:56:18 Andrew: Right yeah it's like an outline exactly for

0:56:29 Morgan: This was worse than. My um, I was consulting on a criminal trial once, and one of the pieces of evidence, which, um, I had to leave for the day and go to the bar after, I saw this, um, he had broken into a church and had left a sticky note, like a little post-it note that said, "I'm sorry, Jesus," with a frowny face. So it was

0:56:48 Thomas: Well that's where Jesus picks up his mail so that makes sense that

0:56:55 Morgan: Worse evidence than that, you know. I was just, you know, I remember back in those days I was thinking, man, the Water Valley crime lab, they, they acted like they were on CSI with this one, but Um

0:57:05 Thomas: Was a delight, uh, fantastic. Fantastic, Pop Law, Morgan Stringer, Ace Associate, so much fun. And you know what? Totally on Cardi B's side on this, obviously. You made a couple Cardi G fans out of Andrew and I.

0:57:17 Morgan: Yeah she's she's fantastic I highly recommend her music or even her instagram even when she's not on there with bernie it's it's a good time all

0:57:22 Thomas: Well, let's not go that far.

0:57:25 Andrew: Can I'm I'm gonna play a Cardi B song and browse Cardi B's Instagram as soon as we're done.

0:57:31 Thomas: Thanks so much, Morgan.

0:57:33 Morgan: Right thanks for having me

0:57:34 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

0:57:35 Thomas: And now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats at patreon.com/law. They make the show happen. We love you guys so much. I hope you're enjoying the goodies.

0:57:45 Andrew: This, this is, I believe, the First Quartile. We're on, uh, the first courtile, the best quartile. Everyone knows that, so

0:57:48 Thomas: This is the First Quartile. Yeah, it's been our consistent policy throughout the show that the First Quarter is the best. And I hope your joy, the ad-free shows, the early shows, the law novel movies, all the good stuff, join up on patreon.com/law, but let's thank our hall of famers. Thank you to Michael Grosnicklaus. Birthday to my lovely wife. Oh, nice. A California legal apprentice who actually passed the first year law student's exam. purplecouch.com. Are you supporting a friend through divorce or going through a divorce? Listen to Assembled Experts, purplecouch.com. That's purple without an E, by the way. Loaf of Orange. Indiana and Marion are the cutest corgis of this quintile. Oh, wow.

There is really a corgi battle going on in our Hall of Famers, and I love it. We should have a dog show of Hall of Farmers. Figure it out. Tolkien Geek. Nice. Mark Tanner. Trans Vin Diesel stars in XXY. OA live show Mardi Gras 2022 in New New Orleans. I wouldn't go to the cinema with cinema to see the movie adaptation of Vortex's, but she would fit as a corruptible bad guy. That is a journey. I don't know what that is. I forgot to change my patron name after it got read the first time and I'm still deciding on a new one. Well, you got another month. A streetcar named Deez Nuts.

0:57:55 Andrew: Absolutely. Absolutely.

0:59:10 Andrew: That's so good.

0:59:13 Thomas: XR, this car deals X damage to any target. Fire never dies alone. You would think that'd be Fireball, I'm pretty sure. Very famous, uh, magic card, I think that's Fireball. LT Nim-inspired Zombie. Been working through the archives for two years, making great progress on OA 459 and clean up on Aisle 45. Number, and then it cuts off, I'm not sure what number you're on, but okay, going through the back catalogs. Awesome. Hope you're enjoying it. Around and round the rough and rugged rocks the ragged rascal ran. A man named Stewart Rhodes, government, he did goad. His thoughts suspicious, his actions seditious, his lawyers now paid loads. Nice.

0:59:55 Andrew: That's awesome.

0:59:56 Thomas: Matt Dunlop, drinking ginger tea in Siberia. Wow. Wood duck, wood duck, a wooden duck, but but wood, wood. Would Duck Duck a Duck Duck Ducked by Duck Duck Goose at AtomicPenguin7 on Twitter. And Joseph Vigiano, your turn, Andrew.

0:59:56 Andrew: Fantastic, fantastic. I Thank you, you took the fun half of this quartile, but we'll see. Dr. Scoop, little hey, Dr. Scoop, a little Doug and Heather, Mr. and Mrs. Pusher, comedian Aaron Trahan at Comedian AET. Come to Madhouse Comedy Club in San Diego. Well, I ever get to San Diega, I will come there. We should totally do an episode on tree law. Yeah, it's a huge discussion in the OA Facebook group right now, tree law. I am not a lesbian, but I am fabulous. Oh, good for you. Hand woven night safe reflective scarves by Kelly Wovett.com. Oh my god, it's Katie. For a fun fantasy story, read The King's Own by W. Marshall, now on Amazon. Congrats. That Thing in the Attic. Liberals own guns to support root cause mitigation, not ineffective gun control, or are also effective gun control.

1:00:16 Thomas: We'll see.

1:01:03 Andrew: The Fat Jedi eating cake and drinking Emperor's Brewery beer in the Death Star canteen. Sports Ball Law. Yeah, that's that's uh, you you got that last week. Sean McGovern. Zach Bloom. Support to Decarcerate, working to end mass incarceration in Arkansas, that is decarcerear.org, D-E-C-A-R-C E-R A-T-E A-R dot O-R-G, and definitely do that. I keep my candy in a jar, not in a desk, and I keep that jar sealed tightly. We should do the same thing with the Senate. I love that. Tell Morgan Katam, son, have Ray Pizza School. The corgi says filibuster. I hardly know her. Anyway, visit me on Instagram. Legal Eagle is so handsome. The Smiths. And Crazy Animal Lady has given up on changing her Patreon name. Just take my money. You, you all so much for uh, for supporting the show.

1:01:33 Thomas: And

1:01:54 Clip: Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar will eat you.

1:02:00 Thomas: And now it's time for T3BE, Thomas tries to be ethical.

1:02:05 Thomas: Let's see. Did I do a bad thingy? Am I unethical now? Let's find out. I don't know.

1:02:10 Andrew: Yeah, This is this, is your fourth ethics question. You're three for three so far, but always a wrinkle when we're talking about judicial stuff. So so maybe this, maybe this will have thrown you. This is a state trial court judge was assigned an action that wanted to invalidate a testamentary trust is violating the rule against perpetuities. I love this because, because the ethics exam

1:02:34 Thomas: Still finds a way to torture you with real property or whatever?

1:02:35 Andrew: Yeah, well, wrote it in such a way to be like, yeah. You know, the stuff nobody understands. Right. Yeah. And then it says, Yeah. The judge has no idea what the hell any of this is. Quote, did not find the brief submitted by the parties to be helpful, which is I love that phrasing. And then secretly talks to another judge friend. Right? Right. Another state trial court judge friend who knows all this stuff. And during that consultation, didn't identify the parties of her case and did not receive any factual information about her case. And then decided the matter based on the advice she got from her friend. Didn't inform the parties. Hey, look, I'm the kind of judge that goes and talks to other people and consults outside sources when it's real estate matters. Didn't give them an opportunity to object or respond. Was the conduct proper? You went with B. Yes, because the judge personally decided the matter. And Thomas, you are four for four on ethics. You are lighting up the board here. That is exactly right. I thought this might throw you.

1:02:41 Thomas: Oh, right. Yeah. Oh, wow. Yeah, I am surprised. That was a genuinely hard question.

1:03:44 Andrew: It It, it, because, right, you can make the argument of, hey, I, would sort of want to know if my, if the judge is going to go consult with, you know, like a Scalia clone, whenever, you know, you bring up intellectual property issues or something like that, right? Like, um, you can invent, uh, and not invent, you can easily envision the kind of, uh, arguments to the, the contrary on fairness here, uh, but, uh, the ethics rules state that a judge is allowed to seek, uh, outside, uh, consultation on matters of law, so long as they do not identify the parties or get information about that case, so that was the

1:04:17 Thomas: Yeah well, so it's both. So why not A then? Because the critical thing was still to decide the matter personally?

1:04:23 Andrew: Oh Oh Um, sorry I should Yeah That is, that is exactly, that, that is the the crucial thing, is that the judge is exercising her independent judgment in adjudicating the case, right?

1:04:38 Thomas: And that's what I was trying to, I want to make sure I had my logic correct, you know, because with A, I thought if the judge didn't personally identify the parties, but also didn't decide the matter, that's, that sounds bad to me. So that's why I went with B.

1:04:38 Andrew: Right, yeah.

1:04:50 Andrew: Not In other words, it is not a per se, I, I, I should have been more careful with that, it is not a pur se violation of the rules, um, just to, uh, that if you don't identify the parties, you're fine, right? Like If you've outsourced the decision. In other words, if I say, hey, Judge Scalia, I mean, Gene Scalia, now the kid, right? I say Judge Scalia.

1:05:05 Thomas: Right. Yeah. Yeah, even worse.

1:05:16 Andrew: Consider this party A versus party B. I've redacted it. Can you write this opinion for me? And then I'll go back in and do a global search and replace and delete Party A and replace it with their name. No, right. Right, it is the outsourcing of the determination that is the that is the gravamen of the problem

1:05:22 Thomas: Yeah but this, this struck me as more like, oh, I need to refresh. I need a read a law book refresh on, you what this exact rule is. It's all right well this is amazing I nailed this I'm proud of I'm not proud of this one, that was uh, that was a tricky one, you but I'm just so ethical, is the thing, it's shown through Well, let's find out who is also very ethical, or I don't know, maybe if somebody got this wrong it would be interesting. We'll find out. Hop in your time machine, Andrew, and tell us who's this week's big winner. And, since I get to do this, I'm going to highlight some people who were confidently incorrect and contradicted me, so I'm in charge. At bb underscore 5551 says, sorry Thomas, you second guessed yourself. The answer is A. Otherwise, no SCOTUS justice could ever talk to one another.

Also, we should just encourage Justice Alito to do a little bit more consulting. Maybe he'll finally vote the right way for a change. Yeah, confidently wrong on that one. Everything you said also also applies to B, but B just makes sure they actually decide the case for themselves. And I don't know what the equivalent on the Supreme Court would be.

1:05:36 Andrew: Yep Yep, that is exactly right and that is 100 permissible you're great that's absolutely Yeah

1:06:45 Thomas: Maybe the rules are different or what. But here's one more. A, else it's unlawful for a judge ever to have a conversation outside court about points of law, which would be weird. Yeah, again, I think you missed that B is also that and was the correct answer and the one I went with and I got the question right. So let's face Face it. I was ethical. A lot of people weren't. A lot of mistakes were made. Go back to ethics school, everybody. Well, I better pick a real winner. I think the person who had the best answer was at Benjamin Bluin, B-L-O-U-I-N on Twitter, who said it's B. A judge doesn't have to disclose with whom he had a small talk about a rule, but it does have to be the judge's signature on the judgment. I think that sums it up. That's what I thought, and we're both very ethical. So congrats to us.

1:07:30 Thomas: Thanks Thanks for playing, everybody. Keep on sharing. Keep on going for that never-ending fame and fortune. Absolutely guaranteed until Andrew goes back to doing these. That's our show. Thank you so much for listening. And, of course, thanks to Ace Associate Morgan Stringer for the fantastically fun Pop Loss segment. Good times. And good on Cardi B for winning that one. That's well-deserved. All right. We'll See You Folks next time.

1:07:53 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.

1:08:27 Clip: www.openargs.com. Be sure to join the Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash 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.