OA582: Alex Jones Is In Big Trouble

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

0:01:23 Andrew: I'm fantastic, Thomas. How are you?

0:01:25 Thomas: Doing great. Listeners, let me tell you, I told Andrew, you may have noticed, and by the way, check your feed, double check your podcast feeds since we released a extra episode and it was right around the time of the normal Monday night episode. So some people missed it, which happens. You get two at once and then you just see like the latest one, you know, happens to me all the time. So check that if you missed it, because we did an emergency slap law episode. So I told, so I says to Andrew, I says, yeah, yeah.

0:01:52 Andrew: Actual slapping, not strategic lawsuits against public participation.

0:01:57 Thomas: So I says Andrew, look, big guy, you just did this free extra episodes of research. P. Andrew Torrez. I know you took a lot of time to do that extra episode for everybody. If Thursday's episode is a little short, no big deal. We did an extra one and then take a look at the spreadsheet this morning. It's probably going to be like a three hour episode. He's got like five, six different, unique, interesting stories to talk about. So Andrew didn't take me up on that. So here we go. We better get to it.

0:02:30 Andrew: Let's dive in.

0:02:33 Thomas: And also thanks to everybody who joined us for the Q&A yesterday. Andrew, was it just me or was it like more amazing questions than normal?

0:02:36 Andrew: Oh, that was beautiful. The questions are always really good, but these were a really well thought out question, I did, I, I had a lot of fun. We might revisit, uh, some of the ones that we didn't get to in another, you know, Patreon, uh, special, yeah, if you're a patron at any level that Q&A will be showing up in your bonus feed if you were unable to attend. So, um, a lot of fun.

0:02:47 Thomas: It was great. Absolutely, or if You want to see our beautiful faces, you can watch it on YouTube, but the, uh, yeah, I did post the HQ audio for in the patron feed for our patrons, that was a ton of fun. Thank you so much for joining us, everybody. And also a good news, uh, Collins said she's gonna vote for, uh, KBJ, yeah.

0:03:20 Andrew: That's right. So, uh, I think our approach to this, uh, which has been to try and break down legitimate legal questions, but you, um, know, one of the things that I struggled with was, are we going to go point by point through the Josh Hawley smear tactic of, you know, you're soft on q anon child pornography, uh, by the way, I, uh, understand, I want to do a slight footnote here, we received some comments, I understand, from advocates that there is a movement afoot to change that term, right, we have addressed it. I have to speak to the law.

0:03:34 Thomas: Oh.

0:03:51 Thomas: Yeah, we've addressed this before and it's it's hard when other people people use the damn term because it's like you're quoting what they're saying. But absolutely. Yeah, sorry. Continue for those who don't remember or didn't hear the first time. Sorry.

0:03:55 Andrew: Yeah, right, Yeah, and and I think that the preferred term is, uh, because pornography, obviously, uh, I think there are elements to reclaim it, there are, you know, it includes sort of an element of consent that's obviously not present When you're talking about children. And I get that. I respect that. The problem is when we're talking about legal analysis, I have to use the terms that the law uses. So Josh Hawley's allegations were allegations with respect to federal convictions for child pornography. And struggled with whether to go kind of case by case or whether than to say, you know, the classic, My Cousin Vinny, everything that other guy just said is bullshit.

And we went with the latter because it looked like, know, we've done a really, really good job. And particularly, the Biden administration has done a very good job in picking the right people to manage Judge Jackson's confirmation hearings to be in charge of coordination, we've talked about those folks, and and and so yeah, so these charges were didn't stick, they were revealed to be like nonsense, the that, uh, that we told you they were, and, uh, and now, you we're officially over the finish line.

0:04:16 Thomas: Right.

0:05:15 Thomas: Over the finish line. I'm not going to say that until she's in the seat with her robe on.

0:05:15 Andrew: Yeah, that's a Mitch McConnell, fair enough, that's at Mitch McConnell, but uh, uh, yeah, it all signs point to yes. How about we do that on the magic eight ball.

0:05:27 Thomas: Okay. And so your point is good decision to not bother with that nonsense because it was a waste of our time. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I agree. I I would say the only thing maybe worth talking about, but it's not really a legal thing, so another reason we probably didn't talk about it on the show, but just my impression from watching the hearings was, off, we need to get some young blood in the Senate.

0:05:29 Andrew: Yeah, Yeah. Yeah.

0:05:47 Thomas: There was exactly one person who came prepared to defend KBGA in a meaningful way, and it was Cory Booker. And White House, Sheldon White House did okay as well. But on The rhetorical level we needed to be at, the Democrats within that Senate committee seemed to still be somewhat playing the game of the old game of like, like, well, we'll be respectful and, you know, we're just say our things and then let the, you howler monkeys smear their own shit all over everything and then not say anything about like we need to get on a different rhetorical level, it seems to me. I don't know what you think about that, but I think we need to be more vigorous in calling out and by we, I don't know why I said we. I think our senators need to be more vigorous in calling out the lunacy that is happening in some of these hearings. Because

0:05:57 Andrew: I

0:06:36 Thomas: If you just pretend that it's not happening or just kind of brush it aside in a, trying uh, to be more dignified and like take the high road, it's just not working.

0:06:36 Andrew: I agree with that.

0:06:43 Thomas: It's just that working.

0:06:43 Andrew: Look, I I think we had a good model of that, uh, when we had former presidential candidate Lawrence Lessing on the show. This right is not somebody that you could look at and say is not a serious interlocutor, you could, you know, you would not say is not prepared to engage with the substance of what's going on, but somebody who's also not afraid to out district attorneys as chicken shit. And I think we're to not censor that one, somebody who is perfectly willing to say that this is a farce.

And his comments on Josh Hawley are the kind of comments that I wish we had coming from the Senate, which is coming coming from the Democratic Senate Senate, which is shame on you, Josh Hawley, as a former constitutional law professor, shame on you, Ted Cruz, as somebody who graduated with highest honors from Harvard Law School. You know better. You're engaged in nonsense. And no, you know, we're not even going to take apart your nonsense. We're just going to call it out and say you're were acting in bad faith. I, I, I'm with you. I wish I wish we had Democrats kind of willing to to say

0:07:21 Thomas: Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Especially it

0:07:52 Andrew: That, yeah,

0:07:52 Thomas: Was over the period of what, two, three days, like, okay, I'll give you day one. Maybe you're not ready for just the absolute nonsense that's coming, I guess. But like day two and three, come come prepared to fight back a little harder. But that's all that aside. I'm so excited for Katonji Brown Jackson to take her seat. Now, remind everybody, were they going to confirm her ahead of time and then she wasn't going to take the seat until a certain time? Or when is that confirmation vote actually going to be?

0:07:54 Andrew: Yep, yep, Zero disagreement. Yeah, I don't know when the precise vote is scheduled, uh, but obviously, uh, uh, you have to coordinate judge Briar's retirement, which uh, his, uh, retirement notice said, "I will retire subject to my replacement being confirmed." So there's no problem. This is an advice and consent of the Senate. There's no problem with saying, oh, yeah, we that consent, even though it is not yet time for Judge Jackson to take her seat on the the bench, right, that is

0:08:26 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. There's no like electoral count act with a bunch of weird rules for the justices. Okay, I just well, that's great news, it's fun to have a little good news, uh, you have one more note about something we're going to talk about next episode.

0:08:53 Andrew: Exactly, right, yeah, Breaking today, uh, but in enough time for me to actually do some research, we're going to do a deep dive next Tuesday, right, in our immediately, uh, forthcoming episode, episode 583, on the just-filed lawsuit by Equality Florida against Florida's Don't Say Gay bill. So this is an important lawsuit, we have the full breakdown for you, and, uh, because it's a bit of a deep dive and we have a fair amount to cover this week, we're going to talk about that on Tuesday, day.

0:09:32 Thomas: Fantastic. Well, at long last, let's get to our jam-packed show, because this poor man across the mic from me does not rest and just eats documents for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So let's go.

0:09:42 Andrew: Yeah.

0:09:45 Clip: I don't like them putting chemicals in the water, that turn the friggin' frogs gay, Hey.

0:09:49 Thomas: Andrew, what's going on with Alex Jones? I see delightful headlines. Like he was maybe going to get arrested. And then there was like an escalating fine, you know, $25,000 a day for just what in the world? Catch us up on Alex Jones.

0:10:03 Andrew: No, there's, it's been an unbelievable amount of activity, and that activity is going on as we record this show, right, it would not surprise me if on Tuesday's episode, which we're going to record after this, I will be able to give you an update just by checking the docket in between our recording times, right? So that's how quickly things are moving. I'm going to point out where the judge is just sort of like sitting around after hours and ruling on motions to move things forward. So this is the plaintiff's case in Connecticut regarding Alex Jones's reprehensible remarks regarding the Sandy Hook shooting. And this is one of the cases in which Alex Jones has been found in default. So the legal liability has already been established. And now the question is, what are the appropriate measure of damages due to the plaintiffs? And again, you have to sit. Sit for depositions regarding that.

0:10:20 Thomas: Oh, wow.

0:11:06 Andrew: Because in order to assess the appropriate measure, right, whether punitives are required, we need to find out. What. Right. Were your motives in saying this? What kind of research did you do or not do? All of those sorts of things. And Alex Jones to have no intention of ever wanting to sit for a deposition because they're going to go super duper badly for him. We have broken down an Alex Jones depot on Lawed Awful Movies, and he is an incredibly slippery defendant.

But there's only so much you can do when all of the facts are arrayed against you. And so in addition to not wanting, having as your primary goal, "I can't possibly sit for a deposition," you have as your secondary goal, this case is scheduled for trial on August, jury selection, August 2nd, going to trial on September 1st. And Alex Jones wants to push out that trial date the more indefinitely into the future the more you can delay, uh, I view that as the, you know, maybe the horse will sing kind of kind of approach, but you see that all the time.

And so by continually postponing depositions, then you know, you get to go to the court and jointly move to reschedule, to extend the discovery deadline. And and the plaintiff's lawyers in this case have had it with, with Jones's shenanigans. So, uh, he was, uh, properly noticed to sit for a deposition in Texas, right, even, because that's where he lives, even though the case is in Connecticut. That's going to be important when it comes to the, oh, yeah, that is absolutely right. So, uh, was scheduled to be deposed on, uh, March 21st and 22nd.

And, um, the plaintiff's lawyers flew out there and Alex Jones didn't show up. So they went into court and said, um, had an agreed upon notice of deposition, you said he was going to be there, we flew down to Texas, he wasn't there, what's going on? And Alex Jones's lawyers said, well, he was real sick and we have a doctor's note that says that. Side note, what happens when you are a right-wing conspiracy theorist lunatic and, um, you have been associating and promoting equally lunatic, quote, doctors over the past two years on the, like,

0:12:44 Thomas: So like, we'll come to you. We'll depose you where you are. Tell us where we'll meet you.

0:13:34 Andrew: Just inject some ivermectin flavored bleach, and, I, right, the answer is that the medical officials you go to, uh, to help bail you out from court are the same lunatics you're promoting on your show. And in particular, this guy is, and Dr. Marbles, Dr. Marbles.

0:13:39 Thomas: Flavor.

0:13:55 Thomas: Mr.

0:13:56 Andrew: Was first covered, uh, on our friends over at Knowledge Fight in episode 649, that's a couple weeks ago, and is thoroughly insane, okay. And I, I don't mean that lightly, I mean has a view of the world that does not match up to reality. And so, needless to say, good friend of Alex Jones wrote basically on a cocktail napkin, right, wrote a thing. We have not seen the first Dr. Marble's note, because while Alex Jones's lawyers submitted this to the court, they submitted it with the instruction that it only be produced in camera and that it not be disclosed to the plaintiffs in any way whatsoever. And I

0:13:56 Thomas: Marbles.

0:14:18 Thomas: Yeah.

0:14:42 Andrew: Think that's not a thing I've ever seen anyone do before.

0:14:42 Thomas: Can you, is that a thing you can do, Andrew? He's trying to pull the old, like, back in school where you're like, okay, if I, use an excuse that's really embarrassing, the teacher's going to believe me. So you go up to him and just be like, ah, don't tell anybody. I got diarrhea. Like I just got, you know, is he trying to go in for that?

0:14:58 Andrew: Yeah, it's just itchy butt rash.

0:15:01 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. I didn't study for the test. I was on the toilet the whole time. I just need tomorrow, man, please.

0:15:01 Andrew: Yeah, right. Right. So so the court, without divulging the contents of the letter, very carefully parsed this out and said, this is the most bare bones thing that I have ever received ex parte. It is not on a medical letterhead. It does not describe the conditions.

0:15:23 Thomas: Yeah. And it still says guilty.

0:15:26 Andrew: Right. Exactly. And so they then supplemented with an affidavit from Dr. Marbles and and and a referral to another doctor and Amy Offit, who is an integrative practitioner and yoga instructor. Instructor. And so she filed a one paragraph letter that said, "This morning I had a medical visit with Mr. Alex Jones for acute medical issues that were time sensitive and potentially serious. We reached, a we started a comprehensive medical evaluation and he has labs that are pending to assess his." And then there's a short word that's redacted. Maybe stress status, I don't know. But, but whatever, they decided to redact that word. Um, I've asked him to avoid too much stress until we have results from his blood test this morning.

I also gave him ER precautions if he develops escalating symptoms as a result of these findings. I am advising him not to attend court proceedings for now, so here's truly a... So, you know, look, the, the court looked at this and I think would have had no problems going, "This seems like you're calling in favors from losers who, you know, will write whatever you tell them to write because you've given them access to your show." But the problem is Alex Jones can't help himself. And so on the days in which he was proffering these doctor's notes about avoiding too much stress, he was at the InfoWars studios screaming, sweating profusely

0:15:26 Thomas: Yeah, yours truly a yoga instructor.

0:17:05 Andrew: Into a microphone.

0:17:05 Thomas: And he wasn't doing yoga.

0:17:06 Andrew: Yeah, for three to four hours each day, which if you have never heard the Alex Jones show, good for you. But if you've never heard the Alex Jones show as parsed by the guys over at Knowledge Fight, you know, that's my exposure. Alex Jones is red faced because he is screaming all the time. Right. That's that's his thing is, you know there is an ongoing conspiracy by the globalists to establish a new world order that is going to sterilize the population and exterminate everybody else so that they can take over and I like it it's it's crazy levels of nonsense it is absolutely a thing that you could not do if your instructions from your doctor are avoid stress it is it's stressful listening to the the show okay so I

0:18:01 Thomas: Yeah I'd offer you an impression, but I'm too stressed out to do it My yoga instructor told me don't do any more Alex Jones impressions.

0:18:07 Andrew: Do I think that's that's a that's against that is solid advice so needless to say the court was not real happy finding out that Alex Jones was recording his show while pretending to have a medical condition and on March 23rd said um show up tomorrow okay because because you're doing your show. What the hell is going on here?

0:18:32 Thomas: Can they be like, hey, we could depose him on his show. He seems to be able to do that.

0:18:35 Andrew: Right. It will not surprise you to learn Alex Jones did not show up tomorrow, that being March 24th. And so at that point, the plaintiff's attorneys moved for contempt. And they had already moved on March 23rd. They provided supplemental evidence that I'm just going to read a little bit of their March 25th brief that says, "It is impossible to overstate the contempt that Alex Jones has shown for the plaintiffs with dignity and courage." The plaintiffs subjected themselves to hours and hours of painful questioning by Mr. Jones's lawyers, and Mr.Jones plays sick when it's his turn to tell the truth under oath. He begs his audience to send him money to support his legal defense, supported by a footnote, and then ducks his deposition. It is absolutely no surprise that today, the day after he skipped his depostion, Mr. Jones was back on the air from his studio explaining to his audience that the emergent medical condition that supposedly manifested just days before his deposition turned out to be, quote, "A blockage in his sinus.

The Now that the block age has cleared, he feels like a new person." It is no coincidence that Mr. Jones's sinus cleared as soon as plaintiff's council cleared Texas airspace. That, that is just, that's so well written that I had to, uh, to quote it directly. But yeah, right, so Alex Jones is saying the quiet part loud on the

0:19:11 Thomas: Yeah.

0:20:00 Andrew: Air, like, "I was real sick, but now I'm fine right now, you know, but I could get sick again if the plaintiffs ever show back up in Texas." So the plaintiff's move for an order of contempt, and they asked for five things, and spoiler alert, they got four of those five things, and one of them they got more than what, what they asked for. So, uh, this is, not going well for Alex Jones.

So number one, they asked to conduct his deposition in Connecticut at their offices, not in Texas, like, we're not going to fly across the country and show up, you know, it's Charlie Brown with the football, right? Like, they yanked the football away from us a couple of times, um, make him show up and play with our football, right? So, uh, make him show up at his depposition, uh, in Connecticut, not in Texas. Put a pin in that, because I found something that nobody else has, has noticed yet, um.

Number two, uh, that if Alex Jones drags this on beyond April 15th, right, for two weeks, um, that's going to make it impossible to keep to the trial schedule. If we have to come back and go, "Well, then why don't we schedule them here, here, here," right, like that. So what you should do is get ready to enter, enter contempt findings of fact. What findings of facts? Quote, "If Mr. Jones does not sit for deposition, it will be necessary for the court to find multiple and to preclude Mr. James from offering a range of evidence. The most significant directed factual findings will concern Mr. John's subjective intent, including his motives for broadcasting lies about"

0:21:28 Andrew: The plaintiff and the St.

0:21:27 Thomas: Love it. Love it some

0:21:29 Andrew: Sandy Hook shooting, his intent to harm the targets of those lies and his his malicious subjective intent, the court would be required to concurrently preclude Mr. Jones from offering evidence contradicting those findings. So yeah, that's the backstop.

0:21:40 Thomas: Teeth. I love it.

0:21:41 Andrew: Yep. Fines. Here's what they asked for. They asked for, okay, for the first week, $25,000 a day. And for the second week, $50,000 dollars a day in fines. They said, look, we realize this is a lot, right? This is a significant amount. The case to which the plaintiff's site in their own memorandum imposed five thousand dollars a day in fines, which by the way it is that's the most I've ever seen no no no, nobody could, right? Um, the standard in Connecticut is that it's in the the court's discretion, the reasonable, of the the reasonableness of the amount of the coercion that the court deems necessary, keeping in mind the court's ultimate power to reduce the penalties once contempt has been purged. Okay, so, so put a pin in that because we're gonna, we're gonna talk about it.

They, but, asked for, they're like, look, he's fundraising on this, he's got a ton of money, if you say five thousand dollars a day for the next two weeks, then he'll just pay it, right? And know and sell you more, you, for your bones and, you know, golden teeth and and you know, special extra testosterone supplements or whatever. So, right, uh, that's that's the fines. The fourth thing they asked for is called a capias, a

0:22:04 Thomas: Just still a lot. Yeah, I can't afford that. Yeah.

0:22:50 Thomas: A

0:22:50 Andrew: Capious is an order to arrest Alex Jones, and this one, this is the only one they didn't get. They did not get that denied. Court basically said, yeah, if you want to go to a court in Texas, because, right, Connecticut police can't arrest Alex Jones in Texas. So I'm concerned as a court issuing this ruling where the defendant is out of state. But you want to go to Texas? You have my blessing. And then finally, fees and costs, including $40,000 in legal fees associated with, you got to rent a conference room out in Texas. You got to fly out there. You go out there to prepare. That's attorney time.

0:23:35 Andrew: You hire the court reporter, all of that. And So they got everything but the Capias and we're going to talk about the fines. So while that was pending, you may have seen this because this came and went. Alex Jones moved for an offer of compromise, offered to settle the case for one hundred and twenty thousand dollars to each plaintiff and a heartfelt apology. It's actually what it says in the motion That was rejected the same day by the plaintiffs. But this is a weird quirk in Connecticut law.

A bunch of states have this where when you have a lawsuit where the ultimate claim is financial damages, in right, any action on contract or seeking the recovery of money damages, then both sides can actually put forth an offer of compromise before going to the trial. They can do this once under Connecticut law. And the effect is to try and cap or get cases to move towards settlement. So if you're the plaintiff and you do it, defense refuses to accept your offer of settlement, but you then recover more than your offer of settlement at trial, then you also will accrue an 8% interest from the date that you filed that offer to compromise. So the idea is, yeah, so I

0:24:57 Andrew: Put forth, yeah exactly, it was look, hey, we were going to settle this for less money than we originally got. You said no and that clogged the court's time, that made us incur additional costs, and you made us go to trial. And so we deserve a little bonus on top of it. Same thing, but it's statute, Connecticut General Statute 52-193, which says defendant may file with the clerk of the court, not later than 30 days before trial. We're within that window. A written offer of compromise signed by the defendant or the defendant's attorney directing the plaintiff's attorney offering to settle the claim underlying the action for a sum certain, here $120,000. And unless the plaintif recovers more than that sum certain, the plaintiffs shall recover no costs accruing after you received notice of the filing of the offer, but shall pay the defendant costs, costs. And that may include, you can tell maybe how old the statute is, reasonable attorney's fees at about not to exceed $350.

0:24:57 Thomas: Went for wasting your time or something for yeah, yeah yeah

0:26:01 Andrew: So, you know, like a half hour of one of Jones's lawyers But so the net effect, I did a little bit of research on this. These provisions don't really really affect litigation in Connecticut very much because sums haven't been updated? If it was you get all of your attorney's fees after they reject your offer of compromise, that would absolutely affect litigation. But here you have to pay costs of $350. Not provide a lot lot of incentive for the plaintiffs to have to accept the offer. And this offer is ridiculous, right?

0:26:38 Andrew: The plaintiffs are going to get way more than $120,000 at trial.

0:26:38 Thomas: That's yeah, that's like four or five days of contempt fines, that's nothing.

0:26:46 Andrew: Well, it's actually potentially less than that. So let's talk about how the court imposed those contempt findings. So we go to oral argument on the contempt motion, motion. And the plaintiff's argument here was essentially, yeah, everything we've asked for is designed to get Alex Jones to appear for his deposition. That's what we want. We want him to sit down and answer our questions. We don't want any of the rest of this stuff. We didn't even want the court to draw the adverse inferences. We what the opportunity for my clients to have me be able to ask him questions and look him in the eye and make him answer. And by the way, that's not not rhetoric. Right. Like, I can't tell you, you know, for good or for ill, but I cannot tell you that the number of times in civil litigation where my clients have said to me, like, I, you know, I just want to get my story out. I just wants somebody to listen to me.

0:26:51 Thomas: Hmm. Right. Yeah.

0:27:42 Andrew: You know, so I think that's true. So plaintiff's counsel said, look, we are asking essentially for the court to set conditions that will coerce Mr. Jones to appear for his depo. What we want is for him to sit, which is why the relief we've requested is conditional on him doing that. Jones's lawyers responded with a bunch of nonsense, right? Like, you know, well, you know, he went against his own doctor's recommendations when he went into the studio and he's, he sat in depositions in other cases, you know, and then they say Mr. Jones is willing to sit for a deposition. We ask both the court and plaintiff's counsel to take into consideration that he is unavailable during and towards the end of April, I can reveal, as I am authorized to reveal, that at the end of April he would be engaged in a trial prep for a case occurring in Texas.

0:28:28 Andrew: We would offer to make him available the week of April 11th if the court orders it. With respect to the issue of him appearing in Connecticut, that would certainly be within the court's province to order. We obviously understand it. We understand that this would present a burden to Mr. Jones to travel here. And one of the considerations, in specific, specifically that we would raise with respect to Mr. Jones, and I am a bit reluctant to put this on the record, and yeah, you should be, we understand that plaintiff's counsel enforces a fairly strict COVID protocol at their offices, including the wearing of masks, et cetera, something that Mr. Jones is not willing to do. And we would ask that to be taken into consideration as well.

Spoiler alert, the court grants the deposition in Connecticut with zero conditions whatsoever, whatsoever, so uh, nobody has talked about this, but there will be a showdown where Alex Jones shows up for his deposition, is like, well, I'm not wearing a mask, and uh and then uh, what I would do, and and by the way, we know that plaintiff's council, uh, listen, they've interacted with the Knowledge Fight guys, those guys listen to our show, so, you know, not inconceivable they are listening to this right now, I would have the the receptionist, whoever is at the the door, uh, not let him in until he complies with the protocols and get the judge on the line, uh, to issue additional contempt if he doesn't.

0:29:18 Thomas: Yeah. And then what happens?

0:29:48 Thomas: Right. That's what I'm thinking. Like, won't this just be another way for him to try to avoid the thing? Just be like, ah, I'm not doing that. And then just leave. And then they don't get the whole thing they were trying to do.

0:29:49 Andrew: Yeah but you but you call, you call the court, and we're going to talk about what these sanctions are, are very, very large numbers by that point, by the point that Alex Jones might show up.

0:30:10 Andrew: Hey, it's Andrew reading the ads, so you know what that probably means, and you're right, I'm here to talk about Moink, Moo, Plus Oink, Cow Plus Pig, my favorite meat subscription box company. They? They are located in rural America, they are run by an 8th generation woman farmer, their animals are raised humanely, their employees are paid a living wage, the quality of their product is better than anything you'll find in the grocery store. So the things you care about are things that they're on the right side of. Because But Moink gives you total control over the quality and source of your food. Seriously, you click on the box and then you just click on the picture. You can sub it in and out. So you get to choose. Rib-eyes, chicken breast, pork chops, salmon fillets, whatever you want. You click on it, you order it, and you can cancel any time. Say this. I This ordered from Moink this month. Why? Why? Because I wanted two pounds of baby back ribs, this beautiful French cut on the bone, grass finished ribeye, some wild caught Alaskan sockeye salmon.

0:31:04 Andrew: If you're not drooling yet, you're probably not a meat eater because Moink meat is delicious. This So here's the print, the copy that I do have to say that, some dude on Shark Tank called Moink's bacon the best bacon he's ever tasted. It. And some other dude jumped in and said, I am going to invest in this company and make a quintillion dollars. Doesn't And matter. Those guys are right. Moink's bacon is seriously good enough to make me read. Oink, oink. I'm just so happy I got Moinked. That's damn good bacon. Meat by signing up at moinkbox.com slash OA right now. And the promo, listeners of the show, get free filet mignon in every order for a year. Mignon. Perfect That for carpaccio, for tartare, for beef wellington. Can do this. You can wrap it in their bacon, cook it sous vide, 129 Fahrenheit for two hours, sear it in a ripping hot cast iron pan.

0:31:52 Andrew: It's delicious. One year of the very best filet mignon you will ever taste but limited you time so that is m-o-i-n-k-b-o x.com slash oa moinkbox.com slash o a come you know you want some meat moink box.com

0:32:12 Thomas: This show is brought to you by ZipRecruiter. According to the latest research, 90% of employers make plan enhancing the employee experience a top priority in 2022. After all, a happy workplace is the key to attracting and keeping great employees. Well, there's lots of ways to do that, but I got to say, like, number one is just pay a living wage, like pay a good wage. My advice. Don't take legal advice from a podcast. My advice, instead of pizza day or Hawaiian shirt day, pay a living wage. Other stuff though, allow for flexibility in work schedules, show empathy, that kind of thing. Pay a living wage in case I didn't say that. But if you need to add more employees to your team, there's ZipRecruiter. Their matching technology helps you find the right people for your roles fast.

0:32:58 Thomas: And right now you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com. Zip Recruiter uses its powerful technology to find and match the right candidates up with your job. Then it proactively presents these candidates to you. You can easily review these recommended candidates and invite your top choices to apply for your job, which encourages them to apply faster. No wonder Zip Recruitor is the number one rated hiring site in the U.S. based on G2 ratings. ZIP Recruitter's technology is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. And that saves you so much time and money because when you have a job that's not being done and you're trying to fill that job and you got to focus on all that, that's loss of productivity. That's no good.

0:33:43 Thomas: So find the right employees for your workplace with Zip Recruiter. Try it for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter dot com slash OA. That's ZipRecruiter.com slash OA Zip Recruiter, the smartest way to hire.

0:34:00 Andrew: So how the court adjudicated its sanctions. On the fines, it gave way more than the plaintiffs asked for. So the court says this court has adjudicated Mr. Jones in contempt. Mr. Jones himself has the ability to purge that contempt. What does it mean to purge contempt? It means to comply with the court's orders. Right.

0:34:08 Thomas: Ooh.

0:34:19 Thomas: And does it mean like, so it'll get rid of all the pending charges, like monetary charges or what?

0:34:25 Andrew: Here's How that works. If you are being confined because of your contempt, purging the contempt means you get let out of jail, right? But when you purge a civil contempt where you have tendered fines to the court, that means the court has the discretion to reduce the fines once the contempt has been purged. So a condition, so this is something that I, that think folks do not understand, um, because, uh, as I was starting to go through this process on social media, people were like, "Oh wait, so as long as he shows up by April 15th, then, you know, that will purge the contempt and, you know, he'll have had all these fines, but then the court will give the money back," and so he's essentially getting that April 11th depot date scot-free.

0:35:15 Andrew: And that's not the case. To purge the contempt, number one, he's going to have to tender over that amount of money. If Alex Jones does not show up until April 11, he will have to write the court a check for $575,000. I'll get to that calculation in a second. And then the court gets to decide how much of that to give back. But you haven't purged the contempt until you've complied in full with the order, and the order is show up for two days of deposition and give us the money. Why why do you do that sort of rigmarole of you give them the money and then the court can give it back? Because you've earned the contempt of the court at this point, right? Like, the the court has said

0:35:29 Thomas: Wow. Right. Yeah. We've got nothing but contempt for this, Alex Jones.

0:35:57 Andrew: Right yeah And I was deliberately using that in the colloquial sense there, but but seriously, like, the court's super mad at you. You have told it over and over again, "I'm not complying with your orders," and so the court is rightfully skeptical that you're going to show up at the deposition and, you know, abide by the rules then. So this gets to hang over your head, and when you come in and say, "Okay, I've purged my contempt, I sat for two days at deposition, uh, I tendered 575,000 to the court," then the other side gets to file a response that says, "Yeah, you sat for the deposition, but you answered every question with 'I like fudge,'" right, like it, it, and they could put in that transcript or whatever it is that you've done

0:36:41 Thomas: Yeah, you dumped water all over my table. Oh, sorry. A Law'd Awful Movies reference.

0:36:42 Andrew: Yeah right yeah yeah That's such a great reference, um, and so yeah, so not only does Alex Jones have to to show up. But if he's not on his best behavior, the parties will get to say, the plaintiff's attorneys will get back and say, "Yeah, you should only partially purge this. The court should impose a fine in its discretion for his egregious behavior here." So that, and mind you, as dumb as Alex Jones's lawyers are, and boy, are they bad, like Norm Pattis is a buffoon of the highest order, as, right, bad as his lawyers are, they understand that if Alex Jones doesn't comply, that the court can just say, OK, well, I'm not going to purge the contempt then." So I cannot wait for that second week of April when Alex Jones is either going to have to put on a mask and be videotaped putting on the mask.

0:37:41 Andrew: And then, you know, I imagine he'll go off and fundraise and blah, blah, bla. Or or he'll throw a temper tantrum outside the lawyer's office and they'll get the judge on the phone and be like, yeah, no, he's not complying with the scope of my order. So I said five hundred and seventy five thousand dollars. How did I get there? Because the court says the contempt will be purged when Mr. Jones completes two full days of depositions at the Office of Plaintiffs Council in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Mr. Jones has to pay conditional fines of $25,000 each weekday beginning on Friday, April 1st, that is tomorrow or today when you're listening to the show, increasing by $25000 per weekday payable to the clerk of the court in Waterbury, and it will be suspended on each day that Mr. Jones successfully completes a full day's deposition where Mr.

0:38:28 Andrew: Jones has given all counsel a minimum of 24 hours notice of his availability to sit for that particular deposition. OK, that was a lot. So then for the first time in a court order, I really like this. The judge says, so, for example, it literally

0:38:36 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. It's like a word problem. This is awesome.

0:38:45 Andrew: Says this. If Mr. Jones's counsel this afternoon informs counsel.

0:38:48 Thomas: Does it have like an Ikea diagram with like, here's Mr. Jones is A and you put the Jones in the seat for the deposition, which.

0:38:53 Andrew: But the glass far. Yeah, if Mr. Jones's council this afternoon inform counsel that Mr. Jones will sit for his deposition on Friday, that's sufficient notice. Us, that's 24 hours, and if he successfully appears and sits for his deposition on Friday, there will be no fine. Another example, if Mr. Jones' counsel this afternoon informs counsel that Mr. Jones will sit for his depositions on Tuesday, April 5th, and he does so successfully, the fine will be $25,000 for this Friday, April 1st, there will no fine on Saturday or Sunday, and there will a $50,000 fine on Monday for a total fine of $75,000 to that point, and so on. So that's how it works. Escalates by $25,000 per day starting on April 1, not counting weekends. Mind you, there's nothing to stop the parties from agreeing to depose Alex Jones over the weekend.

0:39:47 Thomas: Right.

0:39:47 Andrew: I've taken depos on the weekend all the time. In fact, that has come up in this case. So there's... there's plenty of time to to schedule Alex Jones to avoid fines. But spoiler alert, that's not going to happen. So the last day for the fines will be April 15th. And that gives Mr. Jones an opportunity to purge the contempt by producing himself for two full days of deposition by April 15. The court recognizes that this fine, while a conditional fine, is also coercive, but finds that it is reasonable and necessary in this matter and again points out that Mr. Jones himself has the opportunity to complete his deposition and then request reimbursement of the fines that the court has imposed. Immediately after that, that order was entered yesterday, March 30th in the afternoon. Immediately after it, the same day, Alex Jones filed a motion for reconsideration.

0:40:34 Andrew: Alert, that was denied later that evening. We broke both of those on openargs.com and linked the documents because I was sitting there hitting refresh on the Connecticut court docket. And the second these documents were released, I downloaded and shared them out. So Alex Jones said, "We respectfully move the court to reconsider the start date for the fines to April 10th on the ground that no deposition has been rescheduled. Other depositions in his case are scheduled for four days on the week of April 4th. These include depositions that will take place out of state where Mr. Jones has been ordered to appear under the court's order. Mr. Jones would be required to post $525,000 in fines by April 11th, 2022, a sum that crosses is the border between a coercive sanction and a punitive one, even though he would be able to move for reimbursement."

0:41:23 Andrew: In other words, the court has functionally ordered Mr. Jones to post a $525,000 bond at bare minimum. Why do they get to this April 10th, April 11th date? And the answers are that it says, well, the you other side, plaintiff's counsel could just refuse. We could could give them a date but they could just refuse, and so they could drag this out for a long time, and they've already asked and scheduled depositions of other Alex Jones employees, Owen Schroyer, we've talked about him on the show, Chris Daniels, Josh Owens, and Britney Paz, under the agreement of council, those are to occur April 5th through April 8th. So, you know, that takes up a lot of those times sometimes.

So, you know, he's not really going to be free until the 11th. And the court, as I said, denied that motion last night, pretty, pretty late Connecticut time, said it would be inappropriate for the plaintiffs to renotice a deposition of Mr. Jones. It is now entirely up to Mr. Jones as to whether and when he will be deposed. He's in contempt of court. And in order to purge the contempt, it is incumbent upon him, if he so desires, to provide on two occasions a minimum of 24 hours' notice of his attendance at a weekday deposition at the office of plaintiffs' counsel in Bridgeport and to actually sit for the depositions. Plaintiff's counsel are expected to conduct the deposessions if they get 24 hours' notice. As such, the order stands. Dance so

0:41:53 Thomas: Oh, yeah.

0:42:13 Thomas: Yeah, that's quick. Quick work. Wow.

0:42:49 Thomas: You love to see it.

0:42:50 Andrew: Today, Alex Jones moved for an emergency stay while he appeals to the Connecticut Supreme Court. This is a joke, and this is what I've said, will probably be denied by the time that we record.

0:43:05 Thomas: I love that this judge is just like, cancel all my other appointments. Like, I'm just, all I'm going to do is immediately deny whatever this bozo asshole who, you know, again, let us not forget how disgusting the behavior at the center of this is. You know, lying about the children, victims of a shooting were actors. You know? It's just truly disgusting. Couldn't happen to a worse person. So that's great. And I love this judge, whoever they are, they've got Andrew's dedication to documents here. Well done. I love it.

0:43:17 Andrew: Yeah. It is.

0:43:39 Andrew: So You might be asking, how on earth can Alex Jones appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court? And the answer is, not well. Right, there there is a law, it is Connecticut General Statute 52 252 265 a right, and subsection a of that law says, "Any party to an action who is aggrieved by an order or decision of the Superior Court," okay, that that's Alex Jones, he is definitely aggrieved by this order, "in an action which meets these two standards, involves a matter of substantial public interest, and in which delay may work a substantial injustice, may appeal from this section," uh, "from the order or decision to the Supreme Court within two weeks of the date on the issuance of the order of decision, the appeal shall state the question of law on which it is based."

0:44:27 Andrew: So they've said, look, we're going to use this statute. We're going to apply to the Connecticut Supreme Court, and they're going to strike down this nonsense order of yours. You just heard the two standards. Their argument is a joke. You might be thinking that this doesn't seem to present a matter of substantial public interest at all. Right. It's it's certainly interesting to Alex Jones.

0:44:49 Thomas: The other way. Yeah.

0:44:50 Andrew: Yeah, right. And it is interesting to the public in that we care about this particular defendant. But when you say matter of substantial public interests, what you mean is a principle of law that affects a large number of people.

0:45:04 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Who among us hasn't avoided deposition for months and months and months after making lies about lies about children being actors who were killed in a shooting? Who among US?

0:45:10 Andrew: Yeah. So Alex Jones's argument is that the court's order conflicts with clearly established Connecticut Supreme Court precedent that prohibit a court imposing civil contempt sanctions from relying on the representations of counsel in indirect contempt proceedings, with a citation to a case called Puff versus Puff, 222 a third 493, 2020 Connecticut Supreme Court case. Puff also places the burden of establishing contempt on the party seeking an order of contempt. The plaintiffs unequivocally sought to carry this burden by representations of counsel, and the court improperly shifted the burden to Mr. Jones to prove why he should not be held in contempt, without requiring the plaintiff's to first carry their burden.

0:45:59 Thomas: Huh?

0:45:59 Andrew: This argument, I get it, there's some legalese, so I want to unpack it, because this argument is the dumbest thing I have seen in print in this case, and we've just been through an awful lot of dumb stuff Right, so here's what Puff actually says, and in Puff the question was, there was a party that the court ordered to go get a legal opinion letter on the legality of a particular transaction. That letter got lost, multiple years later, and the court was like, well, did he ever get the letter? And opposing counsel's, I don't think so. And the court was like, OK, well then I'm imposing sanctions.

0:46:09 Thomas: Wow. Holy moly. Yeah.

0:46:35 Thomas: Okay.

0:46:35 Andrew: And the court says this, in conducting the Connecticut Supreme Court then said this about what the trial court did in conducting this review of the validity of the contempt order. We must be mindful of due process concerns that arise in cases of indirect contempt, i.e. where the court has not personally observed the contempt. In the, the absence of an admission of contempt, indirect contempt must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. And that makes total sense, right? You would not yet. So then the question is, is Alex Jones's contempt in this case? A, I don't even know that it is indirect, right, like the court has observed Alex Jones as counsel in open court.

0:47:02 Thomas: Yeah, no, he's contempting right now, right in front of the, I can see it. I can see the contempt.

0:47:16 Andrew: Yeah. Saying, yeah, Yeah. Yeah. No, he didn't sit for those depositions. Right. That's the basis for the contempt order. The court said, I will find you in contempt of court if you do not sit for your deposition on March 24th. Then at the hearing, counsel, did Alex Jones sit for his deposition? Nope. That does not seem to me to be indirect, that that is literally what what this argument entails, right? That's what the Puff case was about. It was, how do you know that he didn't go out and get that opinion letter? And I, you know, this was like eight years ago, and it was a dumb thing. And, you Know, people lost the letter and who knows, right. That's the basis. Those are the due process concerns that the court cares about. How do you know that I didn't? Well, how did we know that Alex Jones did? In addition to his lawyers admitting admitting it in open court, his lawyers showed up at the depositions in Texas and

0:47:31 Thomas: Yeah.

0:47:42 Thomas: Right. Is the argument, is Alex Jones saying like, how do you know I didn't sit for deposition?

0:48:17 Thomas: Oh, and when

0:48:18 Andrew: Noted their appearance for the record. You bet, because they're not going to, they don't want to get sanctioned. Right. That's right. And so those transcripts by the court reporter have been admitted into evidence in which Norm Pattis says, "I think it's pretty clear that Alex Jones has no no intention of being here today and isn't going to be here tomorrow." So this is, there is no pressing legal question to solve. There is no, you know, dispute of clear Connecticut law. There is, Alex Jones is desperate not to show up for his deposition and has now filed a last ditch, stupid Hail Mary to the Supreme Court. It, um, he, he's gonna have to produce, uh, this half million dollars, uh, to the court if he delays this out, as he's going to, uh, until April 11th, um, know he can continue to stay in contempt if he does, uh, the court will, issue right by April 15th, adverse findings on intent, intent, which means that the judgment that the plaintiffs will be able to prove a trial,

0:48:18 Thomas: He didn't? Yeah. They don't too.

0:49:24 Andrew: There'll be almost nothing left for trial, you right? Won't be able to move for a directed verdict or be able to go to trial with only the plaintiff's being able to put on evidence. And that should be sufficient to bankrupt InfoWars. So this is a real big deal, why I wanted to walk through, because there's a lot of lost stuff, there's a lot a confusing stuff, you know, Alex Jones is who the hell knows how Alex Jones is going to spend this, but he has been the worst bad faith actor I've ever seen, that this is, that's not an indictment of his politics, that is, you to say, I can't sit at a depot because I'm at death's door, and then the plaintiffs are like, well, we'd like to play this clip of Alex Jones screaming into a microphone saying, "I'm totally fine, fine," like that yoga was great, like I did, don't do that, man, don't take legal advice for a podcast or anything, but don't doing that, the

0:49:30 Thomas: Right. Yeah.

0:50:16 Thomas: It's baffling. I mean, even if, I know it's impossible, but if you were Alex Jones and you had done and And said all the things that apply to this case. What would you do? It's not as though, could this all be better than the alternative of just sitting for the depot and trying to get, you know, out from under this with, you know, maybe some of your money left over? There's got to be a better course of action than the one he's taking.

0:50:41 Andrew: Only thing that I think could possibly make this make sense is if, you know, that your testimony and your documents are going to be so bad in front of the jury that, like, that they, they outweigh all of this, right, that you're sitting there thinking that you know so so is, why there is a default judgment on liability, because Alex Jones categorically refused to turn over the documents that were requested during discovery, asked again and again, and they went back to the court and Alex Jones just gave pretextual definitions. The court said, "OK, well, I'm going to issue an order requiring you to turn these over." He didn't do it. They went back to the court, the court was like, "OK, well, now, like, when you ask somebody pretty please, and the court says definitely do this, and you still don't do it." The remedy is you don't get to introduce evidence to the contrary at

0:51:01 Thomas: Have they gotten discovery on some stuff? Like what documents?

0:51:40 Thomas: Wow.

0:51:41 Andrew: Trial, and so, uh, that establishes liability, that's where, you know, Alex Jones is complaining on his show that, you know, I'm "I didn't even get a chance to present my own defense," well, yeah, that's true, you you can't present a defense without playing by the rules of discovery, and you know, and he knows this, and you knows it's, it's his, have to maintain, contain some kind of argument for, uh, that, that gives you a veneer of, of answer with your listeners. But, anybody who looks into this case for a hot second understands what's going on. So, um, that's, I wanted to break down, because there's a lot of potential for misinformation, because a lot people ask sort of how those fines are going to work. They, they will escalate all the way up until April 15th, but again, you, you purge your contempt, you can get some or all of it back, depending on how well

0:51:52 Thomas: You did, actually, if you just went along with everything. Yeah. Wow.

0:52:35 Andrew: You've purged your contempt, I agree to

0:52:36 Thomas: Well, here's hoping he doesn't. Oh, I keep meaning to ask where I forget. I think I've asked you this before. Where's that money go to the court? Wow. Do they buy like some new study, really glam up the court.

0:52:42 Andrew: The court. Yeah, I sure hope so. I've never seen that. Right. Like every court I know could use a half million dollars.

0:52:53 Thomas: Next day, the court, the judge is like, oh, we got this Babe Ruth card. All the money just went to this one thing in a frame above his head.

0:52:59 Andrew: Spider-Man number one, yeah, right. I'm thinking, I'm thinking of the, uh, the Simpsons episode with the "Yale really could use an international airport."

0:53:10 Thomas: Yeah, exactly. It goes to the court, like just that court specifically.

0:53:13 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Clerk. Of the court, that's right. I

0:53:16 Thomas: All right. Well, that should go to pay the brilliant, uh, people who work to support, uh, the court. That, I think that should, you know, like stenographer, uh sketch artists just give them an amazing retirement or something. I want to follow up on that.

0:53:22 Andrew: Totally agree. I totally agree, We will see, we will see what happens with all of this.

0:53:32 Thomas: Yeah. I want, I want to know where that money goes. Yeah.

0:53:32 Andrew: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. So that breakdown took much longer than I thought. So I want to give you a very, very quick update that we broke down all the John Eastman documents on cleanup on all 45. I have an analysis of the court's ruling on privilege that I think is really important to explain. But the the really, really important thing is John Eastman has decided not to appeal that ruling. Those documents are going to the one six committee and there are 19,000 more in the queue behind him. So I get it. I know, you know, you want a negatron with, the wheels of justice are churning slowly and we haven't seen any high profile indictments. And that's all true. The the kinds of evidence that is more smoking than the stuff we read on the air is, as we speak, being turned over to the one six committee.

0:54:29 Andrew: And, uh, and from there, like, right, that's Congress's job, that's Jamie Raskin's job, that's Liz Cheney's job, uh, Benny Thompson's job, to come forward and explain to the American public and make that case, uh, but, but they certainly will have it Yeah.

0:54:41 Thomas: Can we have some really visible hearings about this.

0:54:44 Andrew: Absolutely, we can, yeah.

0:54:45 Thomas: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate you doing that for me, Andrew.

0:54:49 Andrew: I'll set it up, yeah.

0:54:50 Thomas: Oh, sorry. Not you and I. I mean, like, will they do that? I mean will it be something other than a bunch of 80-year-olds failing to communicate anything effectively, which is a lot of what we do as Democrats?

0:54:51 Andrew: Yeah. They they it it It is no coincidence. I mean, I mentioned Jamie Raskin there as one of, and you know, he represents the, uh, former district in which I used to live in, Montgomery County, Maryland, uh, and is somebody I have testified in front of. He's on the congressional Free Thought Caucus. So I have a little bit of a man crush on Jamie Raskin to begin with. The exceptional job he did as one of the House impeachment managers for the second impeachment, I think, is illustrative of why he's on the 1-6 committee. And so, you is everybody on that committee great? I, I don't know, but Jamie, uh, Raskin is pretty great. And Liz yes, yes.

0:55:21 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Right.

0:55:39 Thomas: He's not the one who lost his son, is he? Oh my gosh. Gosh, yeah. Yeah, what a compelling story that is. And yeah, Jamie Ruskin's amazing.

0:55:43 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And Liz Cheney seems like she is out for blood, so, uh, those are, I I hate

0:55:54 Thomas: Might as well in your last remaining moments of being an elected Republican. Yeah. Go ahead. Go for it.

0:55:59 Andrew: Yeah. It, struggle to say that, you know, the fate of the republic rests on Jamie Raskin and Liz Cheney, but that's, uh, kind of how I see it right now. So, um, we, will continue to follow, uh, I want to talk about the Jenny Thomas emails and impeaching the Supreme Court justice and all that, but, uh, can't, can't do it on this episode. So you're just gonna have to stay tuned.

0:56:21 Thomas: Out of time. Stay tuned.

0:56:23 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:56:29 Thomas: And now it's time for T3BE, no longer being ethical. Thanks for dropping that. I don't have to be ethical anymore. Now we are back to regular Bar exam questions. I'll see if I remember how to do it. If I ever knew.

0:56:42 Andrew: That's important So here we go, Thomas. A buyer mailed a signed order to a seller that that stated, "Please send me 1,000 pens at whatever price you're currently selling them for." The seller received the order on June 1. Later that afternoon, the seller mailed the buyer a signed letter stating that he accepted the buyer's offer at the current price of $2 per pen. The seller properly addressed, stamped, and mailed a letter to the buyer. On June 2, Second, the buyer called the seller and left a voicemail message saying that he revoked his previous offer to purchase the pens. On June 3rd, the seller listened to the buyer's voicemmail message. On Jun 4th, the payer received the seller's letter. Is there a contract between the buyer and the seller on June 4th? A, no, because the buyer effectively revoked the offer prior to receiving the seller's written acceptance. B, no because the offer was too indefinite since it did not contain a price term.

0:56:54 Thomas: Okay.

0:57:32 Thomas: These ones are so tricky.

0:57:46 Thomas: Interesting.

0:57:47 Andrew: C, yes, because they offer was irrevocable for a reasonable time. Or D, yes because the seller accepted the buyer's offer before the buyer attempted to revoke it.

0:57:57 Thomas: Gosh, dang. Yeah. Back with a vengeance is this bar exam. I can never keep this crap straight. I remember examples of like the post office and whatever. I think it is important if you send a letter accepting. Wow. Okay. Let's see where this goes. Okay, a couple questions. For one, there's the timey things that we've always done of, gosh, you I wish I had a better memory for these kind of arbitrary rules because I just don't. I can't remember if it's when you mail the letter, when you receive the letter. When you leave the voicemail, I just, I don't remember the rules, specific but I'm going to try to get there. But there's also the question of, was that original contract okay? Please send me a thousand pens at whatever price you are currently selling them for.

0:58:44 Thomas: That's interesting. Normally it's like, well, that shouldn't really be the question we're looking at. Like the issue spotting, I think, is the timing of all the crap here. But I don't know. No, I'm worried that that's not a contract just because as far as the buyer goes, the buyer doesn't know what the price even is until the seller is like, yeah, sure, I accept at $2 per pen. Then like, because like, what if the seller's like, oh, sure.

Yeah, currently I'm selling them for $9,000 a pen. I accept. That would be a little weird. Weird, so I'm, I'm almost leaning toward B, no, because the offer was too indefinite since it did not contain a price term. Like, I, oh, I might be leaning toward that. I hate to go with that's kind of like the zag when you're trying to zig on the question. Like, I feel like it dodges most of what the question is about, but in this case, it, it feels it feels tough to have that be a contract. Well, go through the answers and see what we think. Okay, no because the buyer effectively revoked the offer prior, prior to receiving the seller's written acceptance. So would, that would that mean that it's based on when you, you get the letter, when you actually have the letter delivered, or, and you read it? Can't, it feels like from memory that the, the post date, date matters.

I think, I think it's when you post the letter, for one, I think that's the easier date to actually access, like that's what the court could look at easier because it's in the postage or whatever, rather than like the hard to prove thing of when they read it. But I don't know, so I don't, I don's know if that's it. B is my, might be my answer because I can't figure out all the other ones right now because I don't remember the rules. No, because the offer was too indefinite, that might, might be it.

1:00:27 Thomas: C, yes, because the offer was irrevocable for a reasonable time. What the hell does that mean? I hope that's word salad. Was irrevocble for a unreasonable time. That's got to be word salad, okay? Not C. D, yes because the seller accepted the buyer's offer before the buyer attempted to. Revoke it. I don't love that language, but that would be along the lines of like you accepted it. Man, this feels risky, but I think I'm leaning toward B. I think you have to agree on the price first. And so I almost think the buyer's letter is more like a, I forget what you call it, but it's more like letter of interest or something. Thing. It's not quite like, here's my firm contract offer.

1:01:16 Thomas: And then once you accept it, bam. I think since it doesn't have a price, I don't know that you could do that. Because it seems like you could abuse that really easily. I mean, I guess the answer could be don't send a letter that vague. Otherwise, you might be buying $10,000 pens. But I don't know. Wow. I actually think I'm going to go with B. I don't' t love the wording of D because it says before the buyer attempted to revoke it. Well, I guess that's okay. I guess dat means, I like A better just wording wise. No, because the buyer effectively revoked the offer prior to receiving the seller's written acceptance. So I'm, here's what I'm going to do. I'm gonna go between A and B. I actually gonna go B. Ah, I dunno if this is right, but I just, I feel like that's not a contract.

1:02:03 Thomas: So, I'm gunna go B, final answer. I think A is my second best answer for the second chance bar exam. There you go. Ooh, rocky start on the... I've got to remember how to answer actual bar questions if I ever knew. So B, final answer.

1:02:15 Andrew: Yeah, tough one right off the bat. If you'd like to play along with Thomas, you know how to do that. Just share this episode on social media, include the hashtag t3 be include your answer, your reasons therefore, where we will pick a winner and shower that winner with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortune not guaranteed. I'm

1:02:29 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:02:31 Thomas: And now it's time to thank our new patrons at patreon.com/law. Enjoying the goodies, the Q&A, audio, the Q&A questionability. Law'd Awful Movies in about a couple weeks, I think, is when we're scheduled for another one of those. So many benefits. The ad-free shows. The early episodes. All that stuff. So, Andrew, why don't you start us off?

1:02:50 Andrew: Thank you to Gary OIsen, to Mitch, to, to Poison Patrol, is tiny sliver of universal health care in America. Call 1-800-222-1222 for free confidential expert medical advice. Beau Moore, SonWinks, welcome back to Christina I apologize if I've butchered that. To Luke Wojciechowski, I'm hoping that that's the way to pronounce that. That. Wojciechowski could be Wojo. And to about to drive 2,500 miles to marry best friend, and this is just a shameless plug for our gas money Venmo, I.K. Wedding. Well, hey, congratulations on the upcoming wedding. Get, you know, stay awake on that 2, 500 mile drive. Better you than me. Congratulations to both of you.

1:03:05 Thomas: Nice.

1:03:20 Thomas: I don't know why you're struggling with these easy names, Andrew. Wojcicki?

1:03:38 Thomas: Wow.

1:03:52 Thomas: Yeah, totally. I.K. Wedding?

1:03:54 Andrew: Well,

1:03:54 Thomas: That might give you some gas money. We'll see. I appreciate the plug. All right. Thank you to Ramon Valdez, Cronkasaurus, Marbin Drakon, samanthaaa, Lapwing. Yes, Republicans do listen. No, that's not true. And Chad Parry. Thank you so much. New patrons. We love you. If you would like to join their beautiful ranks, they're just gorgeous ranks of the new patrons. Go to patreon.com/law. Do it. And that's our show, Andrew. Alex Jones kind of took over, but that was a that flew by for me. Yeah, it was a good deep. I flew by. It took all the time. So we got to push some stuff. But that's OK, because you can always listen to us again in next episode. So find us there. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening, everybody.

1:04:27 Andrew: Well he does that until then

1:04:41 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.

1:05:15 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.