OA570: Sandy Hook Families Win Major Settlement

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 570. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How you doing, my friend?

0:01:24 Andrew: I am fantastic, how are you?

0:01:26 Thomas: Holy moly, I'm good. You know, the kids have a slight cold, which in this day and age means they're home all week. Yeah, which is, you know, it's interesting. Not the topic of this show, but maybe that's how it should be. However, when both parents work, it's really hard to not be like, "All right, you have a slight sniffle. Like you probably got it from daycare. So, you know, you obviously got it from daycare. So go back to daycare." But no, not going to happen. They have a, they have a sniffle and this day COVID age, got to keep them home. But, forget uh, all that. There's so much news, tons of news. I've been assured by one P Andrew Torrez that he's going to get through all all the stuff on today's episode. I call me a negatron, I, I don't know how you're

0:01:32 Andrew: It means, yeah, bubble boy.

0:01:43 Andrew: Yeah.

0:02:08 Thomas: Gonna do it, but we're gonna, yeah, there's gamesmanship we have a thousand dollars on this bet, by the way. Yeah, so anyway, I'm gonna talk for 30 more minutes about my kids.

0:02:08 Andrew: I like how you're filibustering during the opening segment to make it less likely that I get through, yeah. Yeah, no, bunch of breaking news I want to, I want to hit super, super quickly that follow up on, you know, some of the stories that we've done. The, the biggest one is uh, kind of an Andrew was right victory lap. Um, while we are recording this, while I was preparing this morning, was the oral argument uh regarding uh Tish James, the New York Attorney General's uh motion to, response to Trump, Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump's motion to quash the subpoenas in the civil fraud case. We told you that motion to quash was nonsense, and a court agreed. So guess who gets to depose Donald Trump? Tish James. I'm very, very excited about that.

0:02:59 Thomas: Wait, do we get any access to that

0:03:01 Andrew: The deposition will not be televised. So the

0:03:04 Thomas: Okay. But sometimes, like, we, okay, we got the Alex Jones deposition, what, when, when do we, we get or not get depositions?

0:03:13 Andrew: Reason we got the Alex Jones deposition has to do with the lawyer's strategy, right? Every deposition is recorded. For the most part, I will tell you as a civil litigator, I don't bother videotaping my depositions. I just get the transcripts, right. I Just have a court reporter show up. There are a couple of occasions where you want to visually record. And that has to do with the party that you're recording and the way in which those depositions could be used. So, for example, in Maryland, you can play deposition testimony of the parties to the case, right? You don't have to. It's not like the federal rules where you can only use the deposition for impeachment, right. You can just play it.

0:03:33 Thomas: Yeah.

0:04:02 Andrew: And you know is going to look really bad, you will very often, right? That's when you pony up and you're like, "Yeah, let's videotape this because this person comes off terribly and you it's going to give us a great leg up to for me to say, 'I'm going to play this tape to the jury.'" Um, So

0:04:20 Thomas: But you're saying that's not what we have in this case?

0:04:23 Andrew: So So that's why we have the Alex Jones videotape, and that's how it subsequently got, I am confident that the New York Attorney General's office is going to videotape these depositions. So I think that we, that those videotapes will exist. We may or may not be able to see them based on confidentiality agreements. I think eventually we will. But the transcripts will be out long before we get a chance to look at the video.

0:04:27 Thomas: Uh-huh.

0:04:58 Andrew: I That contain the juicy information before we have the videotape evidence of that.

0:05:03 Thomas: Well, I can always reenact them, you

0:05:05 Andrew: Well, yeah,

0:05:05 Thomas: Know? I could do some dramatic reads for us, you know, I'll start working on my Trump impression.

0:05:08 Andrew: I did. Yeah, because that's not that's Not one that everybody has in the bag. So right.

0:05:15 Thomas: Yeah. Well before it was like everybody did. So I figured, you Know, why bother? But all

0:05:19 Andrew: Yeah. Now it's a niche. It's a nichemarket. So yep.

0:05:23 Thomas: So looking forward to that. And and Andrew was right. Now, NFL updates.

0:05:26 Andrew: Yep. Yeah, this is kind of making the rounds. It is a little bit of an inaccurate headline. Line, it says that the NFL has hired former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

0:05:36 Thomas: Which team is she coaching? They're like, we need to make up for this quick.

0:05:37 Andrew: Yeah, uh, because Right, how great would that

0:05:44 Thomas: Loretta Lynch coaching, head coach.

0:05:44 Andrew: Be just just like yeah It's fun, anyway, no, uh, the NFL has a long-standing relationship with both Loretta Lynch and her firm, which is a, you know, coat factory law firm, it's Paul Weiss, and so she had actually been engaged in December by the NFL to investigate the Dan Snyder sexual harassment allegations, which if you haven't been following those, good, they're super gross.

0:05:46 Thomas: Yeah.

0:06:08 Thomas: Is this the Washington football team guy?

0:06:09 Andrew: Yep. Yep. It's bad, well, and also they changed away from being Washington football team which

0:06:12 Thomas: Yeah. I, you know, I refuse to accept that. Washington football team was the best name name ever. I'm so mad. Why did they change? Oh, they had it. Perfect name.

0:06:16 Andrew: Uh no it was absolutely absolutely yeah yep I agree, so uh, those were claims by former employees that team uh owner Daniel Snyder sexually harassed female employees, um, one allegation that he tried to force an ex, a former cheerleader who then been hired as a marketing manager for the team, um, allegations here are, you, took her to a dinner, said, "Oh, by the way, you know, this is going to be a networking event. Make sure you dress cute."

0:06:24 Thomas: Oh God.

0:06:49 Andrew: And it was, quote, actually an orchestration by Dan Snyder to put me in a compromising sexual situation. There's more of this stuff. It's gross. I'm not going to read it. Loretta Lynch was already representing the NFL with respect to its investigation. Right. That's neutral, right? That was not engaged by Dan Snyder or the Washington football team was engaged by the NFL to look into it. And it makes sense to continue to employ her then as an advocate in connection with the Flores lawsuit. Loretta Lynch has a history of being involved in sports law and sports litigation in particular. So, The first part is the NFL can claim neutrality as they attempted to do so with respect to the Dan Dan Snyder, Washington football team allegations.

0:07:38 Andrew: Right. Hey, hey, we don't know. We're going to investigate if one of our member clubs is engaging in this behavior. We're going to do something to stop it. This is now an advocacy position representing the NFL as a defendant to Brian Flores's lawsuit. And so it will be again. I think the bottom line on this is that it underscores what we said in our episode covering the lawsuit, which is this is something the NFL is taking very, very seriously.

0:07:44 Thomas: Right. Right, yeah.

0:08:07 Andrew: And that I mean, in terms of the merits of the argument. I'm not saying, right, yes, correct.

0:08:07 Thomas: Well, yeah, I mean, but in terms of they're scared of it, but yeah, like, like this is the disappointment of all this is like, in the end, it's a group of old crusty white billionaires who are just trying to protect themselves and their money and, you know, have to be dragged kicking and screaming by the broader public at every turn to try to stop some of these things. I

0:08:33 Andrew: So I appreciate the clarification. I am responding to stories I have seen on ESPN in which representatives of the NFL have come out and said to Rich Eisen and folks like, oh, well, you know, this is just where I can't comment on it. But, you know, we the NFL get sued all the time and efforts to downplay. This is not the NFL gets sued all of time. This is a huge, huge deal that has the NFL very, very scared. And this is further illustration of that. I also wanted to piggyback on that. We got we got we get some great emails from listeners in connection with the story, one from Nathaniel Dixon that I I think you and I both wanted to mention on the episode, but it was running late, and that is the demonstrable NFL bias in black quarterbacks. That is a part of the same systemic racism, right? The idea that African-Americans are good enough to, you know, play the game and hit people, but not suited for positions of leadership. That is is contained in the Flores lawsuit as well.

0:08:50 Thomas: Yeah.

0:09:37 Thomas: That's a more

0:09:38 Andrew: It,

0:09:38 Thomas: Complicated question, I think. Don't you think a long ago I read an article by before it was disgraced that skeptic magazine. Now it's completely disgraced publication, but back before then about like why why aren't there any black high jumpers, which, you know, and it's there, there's interesting things that go on with which position. For example, there are no black long snappers in the NFL. I don't know if there are any black kickers. I think there's been like a black punter somewhat recently, right? But like there's for some reason, there's like specializations and I don't know exactly why it is and it may be like idiosyncratic in but is there, um, allegations that for the quarterback position, that it's more than just that it's, it's actually, you know, some sort of bias.

0:10:22 Andrew: In fact, data. So Nathaniel Dixon points to two separate studies. One is a 2015 study by the Journal of Sports Economics that shows that when controlling for age, experience, and performance, right, you hold those variables constant, black quarterbacks were roughly twice as likely to get benched after a start than white quarterbacks. Yep. And 2017 Washington Post investigation showed that black quarterback prospects are often subject to racial stereotyping in their scouting reports.

0:10:35 Thomas: Hmm. Oh, wow. Okay. Oh geez. Yeah.

0:10:53 Andrew: Right. So quoting from the Washington Post, a white quarterback prospect is more likely to be discussed in terms of intangible internal qualities for which he himself is responsible. He is smart, displays Intelligence, understands the game, a leader with command of the huddle, calm, consistent, poised, credited for his production, good or even outstanding, he fits the prototype. In contrast, a minority quarterback prospect is more likely to be discussed in terms of physical characteristics, to be judged erratic and unpredictable, and to have his successes and failures ascribed to outside forces. We learn about his hands, his weight, his frame, his body, which part are big or lean. And then, uh, this, this datum, I thought was, I mean, this is, these are numbers. For example, we estimate that for a white prospect at the average weight of 223 pounds, there is a 6% chance that his scouting report will use the word weight. For a minority prospect weighing 223 pound, there's a much higher chance, 27%.

0:11:01 Thomas: Yeah, oh God. Okay, yeah. Wow. Wow!

0:11:49 Andrew: Yeah. So, really, really interesting stuff.

0:11:52 Thomas: Okay, so I, sorry, uh, disregard all the, uh like plausible deniability I mentioned earlier. I thought it was maybe a more complicated question. Turns out it's not. I was wrong. Thomas was wrong, everybody. Not a very complicated question that sounds like awful racism.

0:12:07 Andrew: Seems that way to me too.

0:12:08 Thomas: And it further illustrates how good this complaint was, right? Like it just brought the numbers, the data in every case in a way that, you know, previously I don't know that it's been utilized to that extent.

0:12:12 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and that is why we do the read from the back method. This Right. Is bringing the data is a time-honored way of proving systemic racial discrimination claims in outside the sports context and bringing that inside the sports contest, I think, was was really brilliant. So a little bit of an update. We're going to continue, obviously, to to follow that story. That's that's not going away anytime soon.

0:12:29 Thomas: Yeah.

0:12:44 Thomas: I just really hope that it doesn't just settle quietly and we don't hear about it, you know, I I really hope that more is made of it, but who knows, all right. And another update,

0:12:52 Andrew: Who knows? Yeah. Yeah, we covered the, uh, recent, uh. Special counsel, uh, John Durham's filing on clean up on all 45. I'm not just trying to plug that show. We recorded that on Monday, and it did not occur to me that the right-wing blogosphere was going to use that nonsense filing as a basis for incredible allegations.

0:13:20 Thomas: Um, can I do a Thomas was right here because didn't I make this very prediction back, I think, at the start when we were covering the Sidney Powell, like that, that kind of stuff, I think I outlined this very dynamic and said I was worried about it going forward, which is as long as some some asshole puts a thing in a court filing, then Fox News and all those right-wing sources can be like, "It's in a filing. See, it is a court thing." Even though all that happened was nonsense, like it just total nonsense. But because they put it in a document that looks official, then they report on it as though it's like gospel.

0:13:20 Andrew: Right? Yeah. Yes. Yes.

0:13:55 Andrew: You're 100% correct on all that. That is part of the dynamic. What is shocking to me is the stories that are circulating amongst the Gateway Pundit, Alex Jones, sub-Fox News level right-wing blogosphere are just making things up. They're, right? Not even things that are in the filing, they're just hoping that you don't click on the filing to right. Recap very, very quickly, counsel John Durham, appointed by President Trump on his way out and allowed to continue in his role, right, by the uh current uh Biden Department of Justice, which is what you should do, has indicted Michael Sussmann on an incredible, I mean, we had Randall Eliason on to discuss that, and Randall Eliason came as close to saying, you know, this is a joke of an indictment. It's a nonsense indictment. It's meant to get in a whole bunch of crazy allegations about Carter Page. And the DOJ was misled by representatives of the Clinton campaign that didn't disclose that they were working on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And none of it makes any sense. None of it is material to the Mueller investigation in any way.

0:14:15 Thomas: Oh, wow.

0:15:05 Andrew: What Durham filed on Monday, kind of to recap, is a thing that I've never heard of because it's not a thing in the law. It was, hey, court, we want you to imagine and take a look into what potential conflicts of interest there might be out there, Given the fact that the person that I've indicted, Michael Sussman, has hired the same law firm, Latham and Watkins, that also represented other witnesses in connection with the Mueller investigation. And if you're thinking that sounds like nothing.

0:15:11 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, so

0:15:42 Andrew: Yeah, that sounds Like nothing.

0:15:44 Thomas: They filed a writ of, don't you see, like man. Like Look at the connections. And but it's nothing, there's nothing. Yeah.

0:15:48 Andrew: That's exactly right. And are like seven pages of repetitive allegations that have nothing even to do with that. And so Sussmann's reply, it's really kind of brilliant. I give his Latham and Watkins lawyers plenty of credit for this, is to say, yeah, if the court wants to investigate whatever conflicts of interest there are, there aren't any, go right ahead. But we are moving to strike all of these additional allegations that are contained in here because they were done for the purpose of enraging the right wing blogosphere. And it'll be very interesting to see what the court does with that. You can.

Unlike a motion to inquire about whether there are conflicts of interest, which is not a thing, a motion-to-strike for scurrilous allegations is a thing. It's a thing I've employed in my career. The last time I had to do it was a pro se complaint. And when someone represents themselves and they sue somebody, they will often put in, you know, their entire life story. And, You know, and you just move to strike the stuff that doesn't have anything to do with your case. And this was like a 237 page complaint. And there were like 50 pages about his crippling alcoholism and the plaintiffs, you. And I'm like, I'm probably helping you by moving to strike this

0:16:27 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Yep.

0:17:12 Andrew: From the complaint. Blame, um, but yeah, so we will see. Anyway, at any rate, uh, if you've got an uncle Frank who is saying that there is a recent filing that proves that Hillary does not, this recent filing is uh baloney on top of nonsense and a sandwich. So

0:17:23 Thomas: I This feels like their, their new method, though. Like this feels like what, what, it's going to be, it's gonna be this kind of thing to, what, to weaponize this in, whether it's election fraud, quote-unquote, you know, voter fraud, quote unquote, this seems to be tried and true for them and it works for them.

0:17:43 Andrew: I'm terrified that you're correct, and I, I think that it sort of goes back to the core mission of Opening Arguments, right? We started this show to talk about honest news reporting efforts that get it wrong because reading legal pleadings is hard. And now you put that in the hands of uh, propagandists and spinmeisters, they know that 99% of their audience is not clicking through to read the pleading. And if they do, you know, they'll sort of like read the opening paragraph and be like, yep, it looks like it, it was filed in a court yep, all of it. It is just, I guess it means we need to keep doing the show.

0:17:59 Thomas: Yeah.

0:18:16 Thomas: Or they'll think the complaint is like the facts, you?

0:18:24 Thomas: I guess so. And Andrew, really breaking breaking breaking news, as in this minute, what can you tell us about this order just handed down?

0:18:29 Andrew: So Yeah, Thomas, this is a breaking ruling coming out of mid record. And here's what it involves. United Airlines has a vaccine mandate for all of its employees. A subset of those employees have claimed, of course, religious exemptions to the mandate. Mandate, they petitioned the trial court for an injunction and lost. That was appealed up to the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit did not grant an injunction, but did remand back to the district court and said, we want you to consider, to reconsider this injunction with respect to whether you're going to place individuals who have religious exemptions on unpaid leave. OK, so it's very, very, again, there's a scathing.

0:19:22 Andrew: It's a two-one. The dissent is pretty scathing. It is getting mischaracterized just about everywhere. I want to emphasize the Fifth Circuit is a garbage circuit. It is with, you pro-Trump crazies who have enshrined into law vaccine skepticism. Uh, and I, and I do not want to suggest that this majority opinion is defensible, it isn't. Uh, we don't have a chance. I mean, again, I'm literally reading it for the first time, you know, in between our records. We might do a full breakdown on it. But what I want to emphasize, that's really important, the top level OA takeaway is, if you are seeing that this has a broad-based implication, it does not. The Fifth Circuit did not issue the injunction. They just said, hey, district court, we want you to think about the implications of unpaid leave for religious exemptions. Now, how the court's going to come out, we will find out, know, you, in between the airing of

0:19:31 Thomas: Yeah, so

0:20:19 Andrew: Our shows, uh, but already there's been, you know, a fair amount of panic and a fair number of uh misconceptions about this going on. So I thought it was important to illustrate just how narrow this is, and I would not be able to do this without the assistance of ace associate Morgan Stringer, who sent me the text update literally in the middle of our record. So, uh, thank you, Morgan. And, you

0:20:37 Thomas: Just for now the takeaway is it's not the kind of like panicky thing that it's being made out to be right now?

0:20:38 Andrew: Yep. It is, it is not. People, I think, are conflating, right? The Fifth Circuit put in a national, a national injunction against the governmental vaccine mandate, right? That's terrifying and stupid and affects all of us Yeah. Yeah, this, this is the court should have considered the factors a bit differently in evaluating whether to enjoin United from continuing to carry out its vaccine mandate. Again, still an awful decision. But take it with a dose of a calm.

0:20:53 Thomas: So that's the worst thing, yeah okay. This gotcha all right well more on that later I imagine Well, that's our announcement section, Andrew. How are you feeling about the rest of the show?

0:21:19 Andrew: Yeah, I know. I know I'm still, I feel good. I feel Good.

0:21:23 Thomas: All right. Well we better get to it. This show is brought to you by Paint Your Life, I love PaintYourLife.com, it's fantastic, it is the best gift, I'm telling you, if you want a meaningful gift, PaintYourlife.com is the place to go, they give you a truly beautiful hand-painted portrait created from any photo at a truly affordable price, any photo, that means, you know, the great ones you have on social media somewhere, I, for one, used an Instagram photo that looks fantastic, and the painting looks even better, I I love it so much. So any photo, or even better, you can combine photos of people or places you love into one painting. Maybe we're finally going to be able to start traveling again. We had another trip canceled from COVID, but we're rescheduling it.

0:22:10 Thomas: And when we finally get to go on this trip, it'll be even more meaningful. And maybe we'll find a picture we want to make a painting out of. If we do, we're going to use Paint Your Life because it's amazing. As always, you get to choose from a team of world-class artists and work with them until every detail is perfect. And it's fast. You can receive your portrait in as little as two weeks. This makes the perfect birthday, anniversary, or wedding gift.

It's meaningful, it's personal, and can be cherished forever. And Valentine's Day is coming up pretty soon. You know, that may be something you need to look into. So this is an excellent place to get a great Valentine's Day gift. And at PaintYourLife.com, there's no risk. If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded, guaranteed. And right now is a limited time offer, get 20% off your painting, that's right, 20% off and free shipping. To get this special offer, text the word OA to 64 000 That's OA 264 000. Text oa264 000 Paint Your Life, celebrate the moments that matter most. Message and data rates may apply, terms apply, available at PaintYourLife.com. One more time, text OA to 64000.

0:23:21 Thomas: This show is brought to you by Athletic Greens. So I'm not a get up in the morning and make a bunch of stuff for breakfast person, a big heavy, greasy breakfast. I like that for a good brunch, personally. That's where I go for it. But in the mornin', I'm usually in a hurry. I don't want something actually too heavy to start the day. And I love a good health shake. I just always have. It just feels so great to start your day with. It's quick, it's easy. That's why I started taking Athletic Greenz. So what is Athletic Greenz? Well, with one delicious scoop of Athletic Greens, you're absorbing 75 high-quality vitamins, minerals, whole foods, sourced superfoods, probiotics, saying. This and special blend of ingredients supports your gut health, your nervous system, your immune system, your energy, recovery, focus, and aging, all of those things.

0:24:08 Thomas: Athletic Green was created when the founder experienced some gut health issues and ended up on a complicated supplement routine to recover that cost him $100 a day. So he created Athletic Greens after experiencing how difficult it was to create an optimal nutrition routine on his own. And his invention, essentially Athletic Green's, is way cheaper than getting all the different supplements yourself. Athletic Greens has over 7,000 five-star reviews, and it's recommended by professional athletes. So right now, it's time to reclaim your health and arm your immune system with convenient daily nutrition, especially heading into the flu and cold season. It's just one scoop in a cup of water every day, that's it. No need for a million different pills and supplements to look out for your health. To make it easy, Athletic Greens is going to give you a free one-year supply of immune-supporting vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase.

0:25:00 Thomas: All you have to do is visit athleticgreens.com opening. Again, that's athleticgrees.com slash opening to take ownership over your health and pick up the ultimate daily nutritional insurance. AthleticGreens.com slash opening.

0:25:16 Clip: Down the law, down the law.

0:25:19 Thomas: Okay. The Prince Andrew settlement revelations. This, uh, is a big story that I don't think we've touched on yet.

0:25:24 Andrew: No, we covered the Epstein 2009 deal. We've covered Virginia Joffre in a number of instances, but we haven't specifically spoken about the Prince Andrew allegations. And again, that's because they are, you relatively speaking, presenting an interesting question of law, But this settlement, I think, really does illustrate an important legal dynamic. And so I think it's time that We talk about it.

So Virginia Joffre, one of the people who was sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, alleges that she was trafficked to, among others, Prince Andrew as well as to Alan Dershowitz, and that those people took advantage by sexually abusing her when she was under the age of 18. has reached a settlement with Prince Andrew and the entirety of the settlement text right, you usually, you know, I, I need the documents, but I have other documents here, the settlement text is not super helpful it says Virginia Joffre and Prince Andrew have reached an out-of-court settlement. The parties will file a stipulated dismissal upon Mrs. Joffre's receipt of the settlement, the sum of which is not being disclosed. Prince Andrew intends to make a substantial donation to Ms. Joffre's charity in support of victims' rights.

Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Joffre's character and accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. And that is true. She's been attacked mercilessly by Alan Dershowitz, for example. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years. Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, commends the bravery of Miss Joffrey and other survivors and standing up for themselves and others. He pledges to demonstrate this regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking and by supporting its victims. OK,

0:25:44 Thomas: Right. God. Huh.

0:27:10 Thomas: Okay. So everything but accepting blame for the actual thing that the settlement is?

0:27:16 Andrew: It is it is not surprising that the settlement would not would be conditioned upon not having to allocute public guilt, right, to having sexually abused Virginia Joffrey. Obviously, there are a fair amount of indicia in that settlement that lead us to believe that this is a very substantial settlement. It would be odd to have a small settlement and then use the words, make a substantial donation to your charity, right? Usually the charitable contributions sort of follow on from the recompense to the survivors. But we do not know. But here's what we do know.

We do know that this settlement comes three weeks after a substantive ruling in the case by the judge, which denied Prince Andrew's motion to dismiss. And I want to talk about that motion to dismiss. I want talk about how it implicates some other folks that we have talked about. And I wanted to highlight that this is often an important dynamic in litigation, right? Surviving that motion to dismiss stage, getting ready to go to discovery is often the critical period in which the plaintiff has the most leverage that she will have throughout the lifetime of the lawsuit. And her lawyers clearly knew this,

0:28:04 Thomas: Hmm. Hmm.

0:28:35 Andrew: Right? Prince Andrew did not want to have to submit to discovery in this case. So what was the motion to dismiss based on? Well, in addition to kind of the usual, this you is insufficiently pled and you're not specific enough and all of that, which the court had no problems with, there actually was, I think, an interesting argument with respect to the settlement agreement that Joffre and Jeffrey Epstein entered into in 2009. Right. So remember, at this time, this is the exact time that Jeffrey Epstein is getting the sweetheart plea deal in Florida. He also settles with Virginia Joffrey for $500,000. Which is, you know, life changing money to her at the time, and pocket change to Jeffrey Epstein.

0:28:39 Thomas: Right. Yeah.

0:29:19 Andrew: So settlement contains a general release, and I'm going to read parts of that settlement to you. OK, so again, this is the 2009 settlement between Virginia Joffre and some other individual plaintiffs who were referred to as the first parties. We some 13th century Saxony here, and the party of the second part. The second parties were Jeffrey Epstein and some of his buddies. So right, the release says the first parties released the second parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant, defined as other potential defendants, from all and all manner of claims that said first parties ever had or may have against Jeffrey Epstein or other potential defendants.

So Prince Andrew said, I'm another potential defendant, right? Which may be the first time in history that someone was eager to say, I probably committed criminal wrongdoing, right. And so Prince Andrew said he was among the other potential defendants, therefore was released. He was a party to that agreement and was therefore released by Ms. Joffre from all and all manner of claims that she had or has ever had against him. Virginia, right, Joffre, on the other hand, said, no, that's not what this document means. We say that the Florida complaint, for example, did not mention Prince Andrew.

And in order to be an other potential defendant, one, that would only be possible if it had been done on the same basis as the claim pending defending against Jeffrey Epstein in Florida, right? Because this was a parallel to that criminal case, not, which is a violation of Section 2255, which has not been alleged against Prince Andrew, that's the trafficking.

0:30:08 Thomas: Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:31:08 Andrew: And then, and this is, I think, the part of the argument that carried the day with the court, only if that person would have been subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Florida court. In other words, you're not a potential defendant in Florida if I can't sue you in Florida. And you can't sue Prince Andrew in Florida on the basis of the complaints that are being made because there was no allegations that sexual abuse took place in Florida, right? It took place on Jeffrey Epstein's plane and his private island and everything else. So her argument was, yeah, he's not an other potential defendant because I could have sued him in Florida.

0:31:21 Thomas: Hmm.

0:31:43 Thomas: I mean, even though you often say like the plaintiff is master of her complaint can kind of sue. So she couldn't. There's no possible way she could have sued in Florida.

0:31:53 Andrew: Well, no is a broad word. The plaintiff is master of her complaint. But the court has to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In Right. Order for you to be a potential defendant. And in order for a court to have personal jurisdiction, over you, you have to have intentionally availed yourself of the laws of that jurisdiction. Now, that bar is not a huge bar, right? If I drive across the border into Pennsylvania, I have availed myself of the jurisdiction of the state of Pennsylvania. Even if I do it by mistake, right, like even if I've said all my life, I will never set foot in the hellhole that is Pennsylvania. That's that's a joke. Our Pennsylvania listeners. Right. And I just take the wrong exit and I turn over into Pennsylvania and I get into a car wreck in Pennsylvania. Right. Well, now I get to be sued in Pennsylvania because I went into Pennsylvania, and I deliberately availed myself of the law there.

0:31:55 Thomas: Yeah.

0:32:43 Andrew: It is probably, and I'm going to say probably because I want to reserve the right to argue personal jurisdiction when Opening Arguments Media LLC gets sued, but is it probably the case that Opening Arguments Media LLC has availed itself of the laws of every state in which the show is downloaded, which is every state. Again, we have some arguments. The law on this is kind of less clear. But I want you to know that that that bar is not a high bar. But it seems as though it's bar that the courts that can't cross with respect to to Prince Andrew. So, right, the court says, "You know what? I'm not going to say that either of you are correct on this.

I'm going to say this, drafting is, quote, not a model of clarity, end quote. And so it's up to a factual determination to figure out what the parties mean. That, as the court say, the 2009 agreement is far from a model of clear and precise drafting. Both sides agree that Epstein and Ms. Joffre agreed to its language. It must have meant something to them. But Ms. Joffre and the defendant in this case disagree emphatically as to what it meant with respect to those issues. So the court says, this is going to be a factual dispute. This is a motion to dismiss. I have to construe all facts in favor of the party opposing the motion to Dismiss. So I can't grant the motion to dismiss

0:32:58 Thomas: Yeah.

0:33:22 Thomas: Interesting.

0:33:59 Thomas: Huh.

0:34:00 Andrew: Based on it.

0:34:01 Thomas: Interesting.

0:34:01 Andrew: There were a couple backup arguments, One right? Was that Prince Andrew was a third party beneficiary to that agreement, even if he was not a directly released party. That was a bad argument and it just sort of went nowhere. The other one that I thought was interesting was the, hey, Alan Dershowitz got off. And how come I don't. Includes Right. For the first time. I have never seen this before, that Joffre dropped her claims against Dershowitz when he showed her this release. Right. Because Dershowitz, I think, very clearly is one of the second parties. He Right. Was Epstein's lawyer at the time. So the argument was, hey, if Dersh got off, I should be able to get off. And and the court was like, yeah, no, that's that's still not clear. Um, so, uh, I, I found that very, very interesting and, you know, we'll continue.

0:34:51 Andrew: She, Virginia Joffre, is still, uh, in litigation with respect to Alan Dershowitz, uh, with respect to, uh, claims of defamation and, believe uh me, I have a vested interest in following that, we will continue to do so.

0:35:04 Thomas: All right, well, I guess, again, good that she got a sizable settlement, but just to talk about a basket of deplorables. Every single man involved in that whole thing is gross, and I there are more of these suits against more of the people that trafficked women to. To, you know, it was sort of like the the things thing I said, when we were covering Ghislaine Maxwell, you know, guilty of trafficking, but, to nobody, apparently. Like there's no, there hasn't been anybody. Has there been anybody who's faced criminal, criminal for for the other end of that transaction?

0:35:22 Andrew: Well.

0:35:35 Andrew: Not yet, this is a good uh segue, I think, to the next segment, which is, uh, I think it illustrates kind of two principles. The first is, when you have the ability of private parties to bring suits, that they often find, right, these kinds of, you know, water finds the cracks. You have incentivized through the market a whole bunch of plaintiff's lawyers knowing that there is a ton of money available in these cases to really come up with creative theories and get into court, uh, and get some kind of, uh, restitution to their clients. And that, in turn, can drive public pressure, right? Like the reason that the Epstein case was reopened in the first place, as we covered on the show, uh, came from public outcry, right?

0:36:23 Andrew: Once the 2009 deal became public, all of a sudden it was pretty embarrassing, uh, that you, serial sexual abuser, uh, had, you know, gotten off with a slap on the wrist. Um, you know, and we saw that, we we saw the entire life cycle of that, right? Reopening the case, uh, throwing out the prior settlement, uh, trial conviction and post conviction. So, um, share the reaction, um, but I would say, you not, I'm not convinced that this, uh, is the end of that, that life cycle.

0:36:34 Thomas: Right.

0:36:51 Thomas: Well, on to our next large story. So. This show's brought to you by Masterworks. Boy, the news is pretty constantly bad, but here's some good news. Here's some tech news you might've missed, and it has to do with fine art. A Picasso painting sold for over $100 million at an auction last year, marking a 1,400% increase from its original price. 1,000, 400% increase, which is shocking. But when you learn that blue chip art price appreciation has outpaced the S&P 500 for over two decades, and that the Wall Street Journal deemed the art market was one of the hottest on earth, you can see why it doesn't take a computer scientist to see that blue chip artwork might be one of the smartest investments you can make in 2022. And thanks to Masterworks, you can now invest in blue chip art work without having a Bezos-sized bank account.

0:36:54 Andrew: Yep.

0:37:44 Thomas: Masterworks is democratizing the art market, enabling you to add fine art to your portfolio without being a millionaire. That means paintings by Banksy, Basquiat, Picasso. Look, don't get porked over by Bitcoin when you could be investing in works by iconic artists like these. Our listeners can receive priority access to the newest offerings. Get started at masterworks.art slash opening. That's masterworks dot art slash opening see important disclaimers at master works dot IO slash disclaimer.

0:38:18 Thomas: This show's brought to you by HelloFresh, and I know what you might be thinking, didn't you just hear me read an ad by Green Chef, and you're right, because Green Chef is now owned by Hello Fresh, and they are both sponsoring the show, and here's the cool thing, I love them both, alright, I'm gonna tell you a funny story, inadvertently, we got our package from Hello Fresh and our package from Green Chef. This is 100% true. The same exact day. I should have thought ahead. I didn't tell them to stagger them. And so we had for that week a delicious home-cooked dinner every single day of the week. It was one of the best weeks of dining I've ever had in my life. Every single night was a really interesting, unique meal. With HelloFresh, you get farm fresh, pre-portioned ingredients, and seasonal recipes delivered right to your doorstep.

0:39:06 Thomas: Skip trips to the grocery store and count on HelloFresh to make home cooking easy, fun, and affordable. And that's why it's America's number one meal kit. So I'm sure you already know that the biggest benefit of HelloFresh or Green Chef is that they deliver pre-portioned ingredients to your door, including farm fresh produce that arrives within a week. So you get convenience without skimping on quality. Skip the trip to the grocery store, save waiting in long lines, and ensure you don't waste money on excess food. That is my favorite part of these. I hate food waste. This gets rid of all of it because it gives you exactly what you need. Eat. I love it so much. Warm yourself up from the inside out with limited time recipes inspired by cozy classics from around the world, like beef tenderloin and cheese fondue, or miso sesame shrimp and bacon ramen. And customize your favorite dishes with our new Hello Custom offerings by swapping out one protein or side for another, or even adding protein to a veggie meal.

0:39:57 Thomas: That means more choices, more variety, and more meals truly tailored to you. Go to HelloFresh.com slash opening 16 and use code opening 16 for up to 16 free meals and three free gifts. That's hellofresh.com slash opening16 and use that code opening16 for up to 16 Free Meals and three Free Gifts. HelloFresh, America's number one meal kit.

0:40:23 Thomas: Major Sandy Hook settlement with Remington. What can you tell us about it?

0:40:27 Andrew: This one, they have released the details of the amount, which is $73 million. That is significant because a couple of months ago, Remington, the manufacturer of the AR-15, had offered $33 million. So, a, that's pretty good upward movement, uh, with respect to the Sandy Hook families. The question that you should be asking that I have not seen covered in an in a clear and concise way is, how is it possible to hold a firearms manufacturer responsible for the improper use of their firearms when Congress got together in 2005 under George W. Bush. This is a talking point that was raised correctly and accurately against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 presidential primaries, because he voted for this as a member of Congress to extend immunity to firearms manufacturers.

And so I'm going to tell you how we got there. First, I'm gonna read the factual findings of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Acts of 2005, which is codified at 15 U.S.C., and it's section 7901, 7902, 7903. So, 7901 contains the congressional filings, and, uh, in terms of making congressional intent clear, this pretty clear, subsection A3: lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harms caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

0:40:44 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:42:05 Andrew: That is correct. At the time, kind of modeled after the tobacco lawsuits, there were products liability claims being raised against firearms. That right? They were inherently dangerous, unreasonably so. And in my estimation and very clearly in the estimation of the National Rifle Association and Republicans in Congress, that would have posed a severe jeopardy to firearms manufacturers, because even though right contained sort of implicit in that statement is the idea that a product's liability claim has to be a defect. Right. Like, you know, you get the lawnmower and the blade cover isn't installed properly and the blade comes off. And well, OK, then that's a product defect. But, you Know, if you get the lawn mower and you know you.

0:42:54 Thomas: It's Built properly, but somebody runs over somebody.

0:42:56 Andrew: Somebody wields it as a weapon. Yeah. You don't get to sue the manufacturer. That's Right. True. But again, the tobacco like being used as intended. Right. It's not a get out of jail free card for the inherent dangerousness of an item. I could get more into how that lawsuit would would look, but it didn't matter. Congress said we want to shut these down. Right. So point four says firearms are already heavily regulated and gives a whole bunch of examples. Point five says businesses that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products should not and are not liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition projects, that function as designed and intended. And then the possibility, this is 0.6, of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that

0:42:56 Thomas: Yeah. Hmm.

0:43:07 Thomas: Like.

0:43:54 Andrew: Is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States, that

0:44:02 Thomas: Crap. With.

0:44:18 Thomas: That that was all written into the bill?

0:44:20 Andrew: That is written into the bill as part of the finding, so

0:44:23 Thomas: Jeez. Just go on and on with like right-wing screeds, wow.

0:44:27 Andrew: And, a chunk of, uh, you know, what we're almost all, uh, blue dog Democrats, right, conservative Democrats at the time, uh, signed on to it, along with one, one progressive. So, any event, that's the fact finding. So then the law itself is three lines long, right? This is, they got exactly what they wanted. So this is 7902. A, a qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any federal or state court, period. What's a qualified civil liability action? We'll get to that in a second. B, dismissal of pending actions. A A qualified civil liability action that was that brought before this bill, but is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending. So, in other words, all of the existing lawsuits, despite the fact that there was no law passed immunizing the gun industry at the time, got dismissed as of October 26th, 2005. Five.

0:44:45 Thomas: Jeez. Boy. They? They don't do that same thing for like drug laws and drug reform? Do?

0:45:31 Andrew: Uh. They?

0:45:31 Thomas: They, yeah.

0:45:31 Andrew: They don't really do this for anything, this is Uh.

0:45:34 Thomas: But. When. It's guns.

0:45:35 Andrew: As. Yeah. So what is that qualified civil liability action? Well, that is defined in 7903, uh, and again, uh, see if you can't envision who helped write this. This is 7903, subsection five, qualified civil liability action. The term qualified civil liability action means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, and that's defined earlier as a gun, okay, firearm, any kind, or, right, a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, penalties, or other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a certified product, a gun, by the person or a third party. The trade association appears only once in this entire statute.

0:45:35 Thomas: Yeah.

0:46:23 Andrew: That's very clearly the National Rifle Association. And so it says, no, you can't sue a manufacturer, and you can't sue the NRA for damages or other relief resulting from the criminal misuse of a gun by a third-party. So how is it the Sandy Hook families were allowed to sue Remington, the manufacturer of the AR-15, for the criminal misuse of the Arr-15? Yeah.

0:46:39 Thomas: That Is A Very Very good question

0:46:46 Andrew: And here's the answer, and Oh.

0:46:47 Thomas: Please don't tell me it's because this is going to get struck, this settlement will get struck down by some higher court is

0:46:52 Andrew: No, this is this settlement is is Done, good, final Yeah, this is, this is going to happen, this is going to get that relief to those families, which is, which is important. So 79035a, after everything I just read, has a couple of very tiny exceptions to it. It says, "but shall not include," and then there are a bunch of these little corner cases. And subsection three says, "any action in which a manufacturer of a qualified product knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought," including, and then the sub cases are "any case in which the manufacturer makes a false entry or fails to make the appropriate entry in any record required to be kept under federal or state law."

0:46:55 Thomas: Done, wow. Yeah.

0:47:42 Andrew: Right. So as you see, the idea was, OK, there are a couple of these minor edge cases in which if the manufacturer is actively violating state record keeping law in order to, you Know, get out, then we're not going to let them off the hook. Right, that was the, that was the sop to us. Well, a bunch of clever lawyers, again, this is the, the, the through line from the last segment, got together and looked at it and said state or a statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the AR-15 includes the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which says "no person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." What's an unfair or deceptive act? The fact that Remington is promoting the weapon with product placement in video games and macho militaristic marketing slogans, that's directly from the complaint, that appeal to a population of mentally unstable young men, the same population that has used the gun to kill innocent people in theaters, malls, schools, and churches.

0:47:57 Thomas: But

0:48:49 Andrew: That's directly from the complaint, so the idea was, yeah, Remington has marketed this product at precisely the group of people that are most likely to be unhinged and go off and engage in school shootings. And in fact, that is exactly what's happened, because, they've, we've seen those ads, we've, we've talked about it before, I...

0:49:10 Thomas: I'm kind of surprised that that would qualify under those exceptions in the law.

0:49:15 Andrew: Am too. It went, went all the way up to the Connecticut Supreme Court, and the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the case to go forward. And again, remember, allowing the case to go foward, this is the through line from the previous segment as well, just means that you can take it to a jury. But now what we see is Remington being terrified of being, being on the other side of the table opposite the Sandy Hook families, as rightfully they should be. And so they had initially made a thirty-three million dollar settlement offer. The case is scheduled to go to trial later this year. The family's attorney said, yeah, that they turned it down. The comment was because of its, quote, glaring inadequacy, end of quote. Well, they Wound up getting more than twice that. And at some point, right, despite the fact that, you want the fight to continue, do have to do what's in the best interest of your clients. I will add, there's one more piece of crucial information here, and that is that the settlement will include the release of discovery documents to the public.

A great condition to add on to the end of your settlement is to say, "hey, we want to make sure that information gets out there," because, look, there are plaintiffs lawyers right now eyeing this going, "well, let's see, 40 percent of seventy-three million dollars is, I don't have to take any slip and fall cases for the rest of my life ever." And, and, and, right, good, we, like, want them to be incentivized for there to be copycat litigation every time there's a school shooting, every time somebody

0:49:16 Thomas: Hmm. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

0:50:52 Andrew: Comes in

0:50:53 Thomas: Well, as far as the money goes, there's no amount of money. Obviously, there is no amount that does anything to fix any of this for the victims. But I want any amount of to come from these gun manufacturers and go anywhere else. So that's that's how I feel about it.

0:50:56 Andrew: Right. Yeah. And And and and I have maybe a position that is a a tick more towards the center than that. Right. Like I I am not claiming that we should wipe out legal gun industries. What I am saying is if you look at the data, if you look at the evidence that has been adduced in these cases, you will see deliberate efforts to target the kind of people, right? I mean, this claim has a level of plausibility to it because of the kinds of advertisements that these companies run. And right, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to say, hey, if you're going to make a product that out of the box or with a tiny modification can be used to mow down a schoolyard full of kids.

0:51:58 Andrew: And we can't get the political capital to say cap ammunition at, of reasonable restrictions, then maybe we should have legal actions, the net effect of which is because note, none of these are saying you can't manufacture a gun. The net effect of it is, hey, why don't you tone it down a bit with making ever more terrifying weapons that are easily used in mass shooting cases? Why don't we make it slightly harder? And why don'T we not, run the ads at the, at the.

0:52:30 Thomas: Yeah. Can you just make money hand over fist selling the usual killing machines in the usual way?

0:52:32 Andrew: Yeah. Right. Yep. Exactly right. Right. So, you is this is an example of where the private legal actions have been able to fill some of the gap where there's no public political accountability. Ability

0:52:48 Thomas: But how is it that, the Supreme Court or something can't just crap all over this? Is it just because of the same thing where it's like state level involvement or God?

0:52:48 Andrew: Yeah. That's because this is you, I suppose they could rewrite two centuries of precedent and say we uh Yeah, let me not say this out loud. This is this is the Bush v. Gore, but basically right, you defer

0:53:07 Thomas: Shh. Don't tell. Yeah. Yeah. Amy, if you're listening, turn off right now.

0:53:13 Andrew: Yeah yeah you defer to a state, a state's interpretation of its own laws, laws right, unless they're election laws that would have elected the other guy but uh could it be, unless they are election laws, they would have selected the other guys, or the gun, you know, I don't, so yeah

0:53:19 Thomas: Yeah. Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah. And they ever do Any sort of harm to gun manufacturers? Could be. We'll see. All right, Andrew, you've squeezed it all in And we've got time for our Cardi B update that I'm so glad we're getting to. First up, uh-oh, a Morgan was wrong, that can't be, happens to the best of us.

0:53:44 Andrew: I and it it pains me to say this, but yeah, welcome, welcome to the big time, Morgan Stringer. So here's here's the answer. We got contacted by uh Cardi B's local council that said, hey, we uh we really enjoyed the show, uh yeah absolutely, uh, but uh, by the way, you got it wrong. We did win on intentional infliction of emotional distress. So that sort of bit at the end was a, you know, Morgan was wrong. And and I said, really? And and here's what happened. The copy of the jury verdict form that Morgan was going on, because again, you know, this is not, this is state court jury verdict. You don't have the, yeah, did not have the page stapled to the back that had the IED on it. And so we inferred from that that it had been dismissed out by the judge. But then when we dug up a second copy of the jury verdict form, that second copy

0:53:49 Thomas: Whoa what no way right you're having to piece this all together right from yeah, this

0:54:42 Andrew: Does in fact have.

0:54:43 Thomas: You're telling me this was literally like a Xerox issue, like from the late 80s

0:54:45 Andrew: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, really was. So Morgan was wrong and and I was wrong in kind of riffing on the IED. I said, that again, the question is, is the conduct extreme and outrageous? And here the jury determined that it was right. So if you you need to know what constitutes extreme and outrages conduct, go back and listen to that episode. Uh, yeah and

0:54:47 Thomas: Wow, wow it's this okay That's comforting, because that really seemed like extreme and outrageous conduct. And based misunderstanding, it was possible that that wasn't, right? But no, okay. I'm so glad. That makes me feel better. So Cardi B won on everything then, right, like the whole shebang.

0:55:14 Andrew: Right. Right Yep. Yeah yes yeah yep and and that dovetails. We got it, we got a listener uh who sent us a link to a profile, a lengthy profile that was just fascinating in GQ of Cardi B. I'm gonna link it in the show notes, uh, her favorite person is FDR, it's a it's, I, I think think I'm a Cardi B fan, like it's just it's great, um, and and and then I wanted to read this uh from James, uh, listener who is a resident physician in Canada. We were talking about uh the accusation of having herpes as being a loathsome disease and that that is defamation per se, and um speaking to, to the disease part, James says, I'm resident physician working in Canada. I want to drop a line to discuss herpes after the recent discussion on Cardi B. While it's obviously vile to spread lies about someone's health information, one thing that struck me is that Cardi G was lucky to not, in fact, have herpes. Herpes is incredibly common, with 50 to 60 percent of the population being serologically positive, meaning if you give them a blood test, they'll test positive.

0:55:27 Thomas: Okay. Wow. Yeah. Oh,

0:56:31 Andrew: That's the reason we don't test for herpes. Most people will only have a one-off active infection that actually results in sores, that is cold sores on the mouth or genital sores, but herpes lives in your nerves for the rest of your life, and a significant fraction get repeated bouts of sores. Then adds, you might see sources saying that HSV-1 causes oral herpes and Hsb-2 causes genital, and Hsm-2 is less common. While it is less common, that differentiation seems to be disappearing and is no longer considered accurate in clinical practice. And here, this is the reason that I wanted to to read it, James says, these people face a lot of stigma and misinformation that is damaging to their physical, emotional, and mental health.

If someone with herpes doesn't have any active sores, they should behave just as if they didn't have herpes. So yes, hug and kiss your children. The social media comments inquiring whether Cardi B should have been kissing her children may be sad for her, but made much, much sadder by the literally billions of people worldwide who actually have herpes and face the same information. So TLDR, most people have herps, Cardi B was lucky to test negative, and please do kiss and cuddle your children unless you're having an active outbreak, and uh, I, I love that sentiment, uh

0:56:45 Thomas: God. Yeah,

0:57:43 Andrew: You know, just continue, I love our listeners. So if

0:57:43 Thomas: Definitely. That's good to to know. Thanks for that information.

0:57:49 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:57:55 Thomas: And now it's time for T3BE. Are we still doing Thomas Tries to Be Ethical or have I just embarrassed this exam into hiding?

0:58:01 Andrew: You if you've, we're still, we got at least one more, but But maybe, well, I

0:58:06 Thomas: Okay. Were we doing 10? How many have I done?

0:58:10 Andrew: Was going to do 10, but, you know, actually this, yeah, you've done five.

0:58:11 Thomas: Okay, wait, I haven't done that many, have I? I was like, yeah, okay.

0:58:17 Andrew: So, Thomas, attorney represented a the client who is the plaintiff in a personal injury action. After the action had settled, the attorney received a check in the amount of ten thousand dollars Payable to the attorney, which she deposited in her client trust account. The next day, the attorney received a letter from a bank. The bank informed the attorney that the client had failed to make mortgage payments on a residential building for the last three months and demanded that the attorney immediately released three thousand dollars of the settlement proceeds to the bank to avert immediate foreclosure proceedings against the client. When the attorney, who did not represent the client in the mortgage matter, informed the client of the bank's letter, the client did not dispute the $3,000 debt, but expressed no concern for what the bank might do. The client believed that the building was essentially worthless, so he assumed that the bank would never foreclose. The client instructed the attorney to take her legal fees from the settlement and turn the rest of the proceeds over to him. The attorney followed the client's instructions. Instructions, is the attorney subject to discipline?

0:58:28 Thomas: Here we go. Huh.

0:58:48 Thomas: Oh.

0:59:19 Andrew: Yeah. A, yes, because the client did not dispute the three thousand dollar debt to the bank. B, yes because the attorney knew that the client was planning to force the bank to foreclose the mortgage. C, no, because the attorney did not represent the client in the mortgage matter, or, D, D, no, because the bank had no established right to the specific proceeds of the client's personal injury settlement.

0:59:19 Thomas: This is interesting. Holy Moly.

0:59:44 Andrew: All

0:59:44 Thomas: Okay, this could be, I might finally not be ethical here. Wow, uh, this is almost like a wage garnishment situation, um, in a weird way. It's like attorney gets ten thousand dollars, so basically settlement goes to the attorney first, the settlement money. I was a little confused at For a second, I thought the $10,000 was just the lawyer's cut or something, but no, that's the whole amount. And then I think the usual course of action, unless you are Michael Avenatti, would be to give that money to the people who deserve it, who actually won the settlement. Michael Avenatti, famous failure of this test, could not pass this test. Um, so for the moment the attorney has like all the money, and they are supposed to probably immediately give the client their share, withholding just the attorney fees. That all makes sense. Then some random bank is like, hey, the person you're going to give this that money to owes us money, so give us that money, which I don't, that doesn't sound right to me.

I don't, I, that part, I, I don't think you can just do. I'm worried there's going to be a further complication, but just prima facie there, I don't know that a bank that, that has a loan to a person can go to the attorney after they win a settlement and be like, give some of that money straight to us.

1:00:15 Andrew: Right.

1:01:02 Thomas: I, I don't think that works that way, you know, unless it was like some, you know, government sanction, like alimony or something where like, I think the government gets involved and makes you garnish wages or something, but that doesn't seem right to me. However, I'm a little worried that there could be a complicating factor here because now I'm worried that when they have a conversation and the client says, oh yeah, I am just going to call their bluff. Am hoping that doesn' complicate it because now the attorney knows about some possible misconduct or something. Let's think through this. Client believed the building was essentially worthless. So he assumed the bank would never foreclose. The attorney followed the client's instruction. So yeah, is there a crime being committed? So the client is just not paying $3,000 that they owe to a debtor, so like, I don't know if that's crime, might be a tort, I guess.

1:01:53 Thomas: All right. Let's see here. I'll go through the answers. So it's as always, is the attorney subject to discipline? Seems to be the question every time. A, yes, because the client did not dispute the $3,000 debt to the bank. I still don't think that matters. I don't, cause what if the client also has like other debts, you Know, are you required to just pay the bank because they complained to you? I don'T, I DON'T think that's how that worked. What if the, what if client also as like a credit card bill for $10,000? I, I don't know. I don't like that. B, yes because the attorney knew the client was playing to force the bank to foreclose the mortgage. That's, look, if there's a plausible yes answer, I'm going to go with B as a plausible option. I'm leaning, I think it's no answer, but I'm gonna go with B, but I'm leaving B alive rather because that may be a way of a yes answer. C, no, because the attorney did not represent the client in the mortgage matter.

1:02:42 Thomas: Is that the reason it's no? Or D, no because the bank had no established right to the specific proceeds of the client's personal personal injury settlement. That kind of seems more like it. D seems more like, I don't really think, I think even if the attorney represented the client in the mortgage matter, I don't even think that changes anything, because you still got a settlement from a different matter you're doing. I don't, I think it makes no difference. If the, yeah, I think it's D. I'm pretty solid D, final answer. I'll leave B as my like second chance ethics, uh, firm. B is my second choice, but, uh, I think it's pretty solidly D here.

1:03:19 Andrew: And if you want 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 and your reasons therefore, we will pick a winner and shower that winner with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortune not guaranteed. Yeah.

1:03:33 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:03:35 Thomas: And a few new patrons at patreon.com/law to thank, by the way. Law'd Awful Movies should be coming at you real, real soon. We promise, very soon. That's a good reason to sign on to patreon.com/law plus ad-free episodes, the early episodes, all the goodies, you know it already, so, uh, Andrew, why don't you start us off? Thank

1:03:56 Andrew: Thank you to Roman, to Anonymous Intelligence Officer, and, man, I hope that's serious, Thomas Summerall, and to the John. Take it away, Thomas.

1:04:07 Thomas: You to Nancy Anderson, Zeg iets grappigs in het Nederlands, cool, Pay Public Defenders More, yeah, I agree, CaratessaSparkletoes, and Let's sign Heath up for Christian Mingle., I love it, I'm with that, plant, do it. Thank you so much, new patrons, hope you enjoy the goodies and all the stuff, that's our show. Andrew, I'm, I'm impressed you nailed it, that was, that wasn't even particularly long, you squeezed it all in, I doubted you shouldn't have doubted ya all

1:04:36 Andrew: Well Sometimes I could come through, but don't, don't think it's gonna happen again.

1:04:44 Thomas: Right, thanks so much for listening, everybody, we've got a great show planned for you, by the way, Tuesday, which again patrons get early, we've a Thomas requested Magic the Gathering NFT season desist, can't wait, we've the Sarah Palin lawsuit, seriously, tune into that episode. If you're a patron, you get it Sunday night. Everybody else, listen to it on Tuesday, but we'll see you then.

1:04:54 Andrew: Yeah.

1:05:08 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.

1:05:42 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.