OA589: The FL House is a Dumpster Fire. Sarah Henry Hopes to Change That!

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 589, I'm Thomas Smith, that's Andrew Torres, how are you doing sir?

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

0:01:26 Thomas: Doing great, I am excited to talk with Sarah Henry, it's been a minute since she's been on the show, and when last she was, she was doing something quite a bit different than what she's doing now. Now.

0:01:30 Andrew: Yeah, a little bit, so yeah, I thought this was great, every time we get an opportunity to talk about how our listeners are getting involved and making a difference and doing good, there's a lot of despair out there, but to keep doing the hard work, I'm very excited.

0:01:37 Thomas: Yeah.

0:01:53 Thomas: You say our listeners. I mean, she was the communications director for American Humanist. She came on the show now.

0:01:56 Andrew: She told me she listens to the show. You

0:02:01 Thomas: I like, oh, there's a random listener to the show who's now doing something.

0:02:05 Andrew: Very true. I know her mom's a show listener, so.

0:02:08 Thomas: Ooh, can't we don't have any other announcements, so I think we're just getting to that that interview what do say let's do it

0:02:13 Andrew: Let's go do it.

0:02:14 Clip: Hello! Operator! Give me the number for 911!

0:02:17 Thomas: And we're now joined by Sarah Henry, candidate for Florida 38th. How are you doing, Sarah?

0:02:22 Sarah: I'm doing great. Thank you so much for having me today.

0:02:24 Andrew: The last time we had you on was in your capacity as communications director for the American Humanist Association, in which you came on and broke down all of the facts underlying the Bladensburg cross case,

0:02:37 Thomas: Ah, yes. How a 9,000 foot cross is not a religious symbol. That's right. I remember. Nothing to do with religion.

0:02:41 Andrew: Yeah. We had varying degrees of, of optimism and less, less than optimism with respect to, uh, to how that case was going to turn out. Uh, didn't, didn't turn out great. Yeah.

0:02:54 Sarah: No, not ideal. Unfortunately, the less optimistic among us won the day, but the AHA is still doing great work to try to support the separation of church and state. Great.

0:03:04 Andrew: Absolutely But you've moved on. Not for, not for any lack of support for what they're doing, you've, you've moving on and, and why don't you, uh, talk about that a little bit?

0:03:12 Sarah: Yeah, so about three years ago, I moved to Florida and started getting involved in local politics here, a whole different beast of its own.

0:03:20 Andrew: Not not an area that does not need you know uh grassroots Involvement. So I love, I love the idea of young progressives moving to Florida, you to central Florida and, uh, becoming active in politics. Keep.

0:03:22 Sarah: Exactly No.

0:03:35 Sarah: From my time at AHA, you know, we know that separation of church and state is not an extreme belief. You know, more than half of Americans support it. Almost 70 percent of Americans say that the federal government has no role in establishing an official religion and shouldn't get involved. And, so coming here and starting to talk about what those issues look like in local politics, in state politics. I got involved with the local Young Democrats here in Seminole County and really grew passionate about making sure these values that I supported during my time at AHA and continue to support are the attention they deserve here. And it's just been a great opportunity. Campaign's been great so far. I'm lucky to work with some amazing folks already. So it's been wonderful.

0:04:18 Andrew: Talk to us a little bit about right, you went out of Florida, you started getting active in local Democratic politics and and then how did you become a candidate for the House?

0:04:29 Sarah: Like I said, I've been volunteering locally with the Young Democrats and then with a number of other candidates in the area for office at local, state, and working on the Biden campaign as well. This year in Florida, as you may see in the news, we've got some redistricting going on. So this redistricting on the House, Florida House of Representatives side left my district pretty flippable. We've got a strong Republican candidate, but I entered the race because there wasn't a strong Democratic voice for the people that deserve to be represented in this community. And I'm lucky to be working closely with a lot of great local organizations here to help kind of really establish a pro-choice woman's voice who understands the issues that working families in Central Florida are going through in this race, and hopefully in Tallahassee.

0:05:19 Andrew: And so my understanding is that the Party in Florida actively recruited you to run for the seat, right?

0:05:25 Sarah: I've got some friends working with other local races who introduced me to the party and they reached out and let me know that, you know, this is a great opportunity for someone who has a presence in the community already. Been working pretty closely together over the last two weeks. It's been wonderful. Wonderful.

0:05:41 Andrew: You know, people people contact me fairly regularly. Right. Who want to get involved. I Right? And always tell them, the way right, to get involved is to get active in your local community and, you to be recognized as somebody who is doing the hard work. Right and it is sort of the, you the exact mirror image of, you what we've always criticized from, you Green Party candidates who only run for president for some unknown reason, right? Like people who, you Know, just kind of parachute in and are like, well, I'd like the top job, but, I you am way above stuffing envelopes, you Know, and knocking on doors.

But then they ask me a hard question, and I don't have a great answer for it. And that is, active atheist. I'm a non-believer. Type my name in the Google machine and it says non-believer or atheist right after it. What's that going to do in terms of my ability to run for office? Well, I think there is just tremendous, maybe, I hope I'm not getting too optimist prime here, but you know, that you would be, you know, sort of actively recruited by the Democratic Party as a candidate, kind of, knowing your involvement, continuing support for the American Humanist Association, identifying as a non-believer, all of that. Talk to us a little bit bit about that so

0:05:41 Sarah: Sure. Right.

0:06:56 Sarah: Sure. Think it goes without saying that if you Google my name, it's hard to hide that I'm non-religious. This has been a key, key part of my life for a long time. In fact, you know, I did it professionally with y'all. But the, I think what's important to remember is that these beliefs, no matter what you hear on the internet, they're not extreme. Like I said, most Americans support the separation of church and state. They don't believe that there should be an official establishment of religion.

And I think what's important is less about someone's personal religious or lack thereof beliefs, and more this idea that you can hold this deep respect for an individual religious belief. And for me, I think that's one wonderful experience I had in Washington, D.C. and with the AHA is that that key of interfaith advocacy and alliances has always been really present because that respect is rooted in the idea that it is not the job or role of an elected official to kind of impose those beliefs. Beliefs. And at the end of the day, I think myself, y'all, people I work with and talk to on a regular basis, wherever these values come from, we share many of them. The way we care about other people, the way we express that care in action, whether it's stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors, or whether it is advocating for comprehensive accessible healthcare, whether it is for affordable housing or high-quality public education, these are the values-based issues that non-believers and religious people alike share.

And I think focusing the conversation on these is really crucial to come, you know, helping folks see that being non-religious isn't scary or foreign. You know, it could be the person next door to you. We know these numbers are growing across the United States and across Florida.

0:08:41 Sarah: And so really focusing on these issues that we do have in common, not necessarily sort of the base of them, is I think one thing that's been super valuable in this race and in my experience professionally.

0:08:52 Thomas: Can I ask, so then have you been front loading that, have you been like, what's been your strategy in your campaigning and all this stuff, do Because I could see it going either way. Maybe, uh, not addressing it and just sticking to those values you talk about, you know, that that are obviously going to appeal to everybody, or kind of getting ahead of it and talking about your non-religion, so that it's not like a gotcha issue or something for your opponent. What's ben your thinking on that? Hmm.

0:09:18 Sarah: Right. I don't want someone else to define something so personal to me as what I have faith in or what I've placed my values, you know, the basis of my values on. So I think talking about it is important. This This is a key piece of who I am. You know, my values are based on this idea that we have one life to live. And with that life, I want to do the most good I can. In Seminole County right now, the most Good I Can Do is run for office and represent the needs of these people whose needs are not being represented in Tallahassee right now.

0:09:22 Thomas: No

0:09:51 Andrew: If you're an Opening Arguments listener and you've thought about getting involved in politics at the local level, and you, you're worried that, you know, you were going to be, uh, you backroomed and, uh, you know, the the party chiefs would be looking for, you know, some centrist religious person to to displace you. You You can dispel those rumors. It's OK to to get out there and get get get active on the ground. They know.

0:10:13 Sarah: That's right. That's correct. It's not a disqualifier.

0:10:18 Andrew: That's awesome.

0:10:18 Sarah: Well,

0:10:19 Thomas: And in some ways, you through the Trump years and through the Trump's election, had they had to abandon any idea that Republicans could rely on an argument of like, "Well, your candidate needs to be this pristine, perfect, in our eyes, you know, in their eyes, person," because they, in some ways, Trump kind of helped this a little bit because they switched to like, "Well, it doesn't really, really matter, you know, all the marriages and bankruptcies and dot dot dot and all this, really, that doesn't matter, you don't, we're not so, uh, keen on that anymore." What was that poll we always used to reference, Andrew, where it was like, the, the amount, evangelicals, uh, used to care about like if the candidate personally reflected their values?

0:10:53 Thomas: Remember that? Yeah. And It went from like 80 To Like 10.

0:10:53 Andrew: Oh, yeah, I do. I don't remember the numbers precisely, but

0:10:57 Thomas: So in Some ways we kind of benefit from, uh, the fact that you could point to the only important figure in Republicanism right now and be like, yeah, not, not exactly your idea of a, you know, of a Christian standard family man kind of guy.

0:10:58 Andrew: Sarah, So I think that's incredibly encouraging to, you kind of serve as another call to action. So let's talk about, not just you getting involved, like what's your focus in terms of of your issues, are what you going to be out trying to talk to potential voters about?

0:11:26 Sarah: Here in Central Florida, as in most places in the country, I think you have to to talk about the housing affordability crisis. I know it's a challenge folks are facing all over. Here in Florida, we saw Orlando pass San Francisco in terms of cost of living during COVID, right? And it's just, it's an absolute crisis here in our home state. And this is not just an affordability issue. It's a racial justice issue too, right. We're seeing Black and Brown and indigenous communities being priced out of neighborhoods they live in, being, forced to move to areas with high flood and hurricane risks. Like these are crucial problems and they are like inextricably intertwined. Meanwhile, we're seeing the Florida House of Representatives legitimately slash funding specifically designated to help address statewide housing crises in the face of a statewide housing crisis. So it's been super frustrating to watch people and legislators in Tallahassee just have no sense of what people are actually struggling with in the day-to-day here.

0:12:25 Andrew: Yeah, I bet. So restoring those funds, can I see what, are there other sort particular initiatives that you can think of? By And the way, I love the framing and the characterization, characterization of this as a racial justice issue, uh, because it is, um, and thinking about, you, the de facto redlining that, know, uh, is still occurring, uh, on you know alive and well today yeah so

0:12:50 Sarah: Alive? And well in our communities. Exactly Like you said, restoring that funding, making sure it's available to people, the application process is clear and accessible, making sure people have access to the benefits they're already entitled to. I mean, we saw people being taken advantage of during rent freezes and eviction freezes during the pandemic. We saw companies ignoring that those policies and representatives in this area were able to kind of support folks who were who were being taken taken advantage of, who are being displaced. So I think filling that role and supporting that community is crucial, but also making sure that conversations around potential freezes, potential eviction freezes are being had and listened to at state the level. This is maybe a little bit niche, but district is just outside of a number of colleges here in Central Florida.

0:13:42 Sarah: And we're investing in these high quality public schools, K through 12, we're investing in higher education and our students graduate and immediately move because no one can afford to stay here or come here and put down roots. And so they're sort of forced to travel to a region they can afford. So not only are we pricing out people who already live here, we're losing the opportunity to bring folks in because even those who want to come here because, you know, they can't afford to.

0:14:08 Thomas: Once elected, will you take on the scourge that is Disney programming, though, is what I really want to know I hate

0:14:14 Sarah: Oh, my goodness. Speaking of Disney. The Disney housing is spreading, um, and I think just last week Disney, or maybe it's been two weeks now Disney announced that they're gonna, um, invest in an affordable housing complex. There's not a lot of details out about that yet, and uh, that'll be over in Orange County, but that'll definitely be interesting to see.

0:14:38 Andrew: One of the things that the Democratic Party does, and that candidates for office, uh, have to do is be, you, the only party of grownups, um, and propose actual solutions, because the other side does not care, right. And, and I'm going to pivot to that right now. We watched, uh, the Virginia governor's race, and I, I'm sure you watch that with considerable interest, uh, where Glenn Yunkin essentially ran on, um, "I'm gonna take Christopher Rufo's disingenuous, uh, definition of critical race theory and promise, promise you, uh, voters of Virginia that, uh, we won't have that scourge in Virginia anymore." Not that we have it now, not that any of you care, and all of this is random, crazy, right-wing, uh, virtue signaling. Was Virginia, Florida seems to be sort of, uh, battleground central for the very worst of Trumpism, uh, the very worst of, uh, demonizing and scapegoating our friends in the LGBTQ community.

0:14:58 Sarah: Yes

0:15:34 Andrew: Um, so we talk about some of the specific horrible things going on in your state right now, but, but I guess, kind of as an overall question, like, is this something you're afraid of, that you're running away from, or, you know, are you are you going to talk to people directly about, like, are you, how going to balance that from the other side during your campaign?

0:15:52 Sarah: Well if I was running away from it, I don't think I could run for office in Central Florida, because these are issues that are kind of being talked about here. I'll start at the top. The first issue you mentioned, the idea that somehow critical race theory, a graduate level, you academic theory, is present in the 71% of K through 5 math textbooks that were just rejected by the Florida Department of Education, which is absolutely ludicrous, of course. But we saw 71% of K through five, 41% of all math textbooks submitted to the Department of Education for review and approval were rejected for this idea that they included either critical race theory, social emotional learning, because, you it's absolute blasphemy.

0:16:37 Thomas: That too, now, now I didn't even I didn't know that was on the list

0:16:39 Sarah: Yeah, social, emotional learning here In Florida. That's on the list because it would be horrible to include, you know, references to the fact that math might stress you out in a math textbook, and then references to Common Core academic standards, which Florida is vehemently opposed to. And

0:16:40 Thomas: Oh yeah

0:16:55 Andrew: Yeah, am I trying to figure out, sort of beyond the kind of in-group laughing that we are having here on the left, of a math textbook somehow teaching critical race race theory. Intersectionality and addition, right, is an interesting approach. I don't have any concrete examples to go by. It almost feels as if that's a deliberate strategy.

0:17:20 Sarah: Yeah, the Department of Education chose not to publish any examples of their concerns when they rejected this slew of textbooks.

0:17:28 Andrew: Well, I wonder why that is.

0:17:30 Sarah: And I, this issue, it's broader than just sort of the silliness of these books being rejected, because the administration claimed, well, you know, every district has at least one textbook from their list that has been approved. But in some districts, that one option is actually only available digitally. So now we're seeing additional challenges with students who may not have, you know, reliable access to internet, reliable access to internet at home, you know, consistent access to a computer. And it's just created more problems because of this nonsense. And it's frustrating to see rushed bills that, and decisions that are going to have these huge impacts for local families, just push through with no thought what to that's actually going to look like in homes.

0:18:16 Thomas: The legislature do anything real now, or is it just bullshit culture war made up stuff? Like, honestly, I mean, is there a bunch of real stuff happening that we don't see, or Mean, or is het just like that's all they do now because nothing else grabs headlines and we live in a hellscape? Yeah.

0:18:32 Sarah: Would say some members of the legislature are trying to affect real change. So today, DeSantis and his cronies pushed through congressional maps that basically eliminate, uh, or draw out districts that are currently represented by Black legislatures, legislators. And the Florida House Democrats, um, staged a sit-in and, uh—on the floor of the Florida House of Representatives, sort of in protest of this abominable, um—clearly racially and party-motivated attack on these communities. Um—and—and I think—I mean, mean, hopefully it was very impactful. You, my friends and hopefully, hopefully future colleagues, were able to kind of live stream parts of that sit-in. And I think at this point, you know, really drawing attention to these issues and making it clear outside of Florida that there is a movement to stand up against these against these sort of silly and and sometimes horrifying decisions that are being pushed through is is a key piece of what the Democrats are working on right now.

0:19:30 Andrew: Related to that, know you've seen the release and one page instruction that comes from the Florida Department of Health that came out yesterday that was entitled The Treatment of Gender Dysphoria for Children and Adolescents. And paper says due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the potential for long term irreversible effects, all of which are lies. The department's guidelines are as follows. And they have given four bullet points. Number one, the social gender transition. Yeah, yeah.

0:19:53 Sarah: No definition. Just throw those words out there.

0:20:05 Andrew: Yep. Should Yep. Not be a treatment option for children or adolescents. Number two, anyone under 18 should not be prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Perfectly reversible treatments. Gender reassignment surgery should not be a treatment option for Children or Adolescents. And then finally, Children and Adolescence should be provided social support by peers and family and seek counseling from a licensed provider. Um, thoughts and then also, right, this is Republican a administration with control over state executive agency at the Florida Department of Health. You what realistically can we do about about an administration that seems, you actively to be trying to kill its constituents with covid and demonizing anybody who is is trans who's living in Florida?

0:20:51 Sarah: Well, and I mean, first, I think we should be clear, this is an attempt to kids here. I mean like we know that prevention care for trans kids looks like gender affirmation. I know that. And this is, it's abominable. I mean, when it came out today, we were devastated and frustrated and angry. This idea that you can just throw out the words, "don't allow social gender transition as a treatment"? I mean, with no definition, with no clarity around what that looks like. I mean, are you going to ask teachers to legislate haircuts? Like, I just don't understand language except that it is left intentionally vague so that teachers and administrators and, more importantly, the Florida Department of Health can say and do whatever they want and say that it's supported by these directions or instructions. I think someone who, if you live in Florida, the best thing you could do is vote. There are Democrats running up and down the state, up and down the ticket, who are opposed to this kind of horrifying treatment of our community's kids.

0:20:57 Andrew: Yeah.

0:21:52 Sarah: So absolutely vote. And in your own home state, vote. The midterms are a crucial time to to protect the gains that the Democratic Party has won over the last two years and ensure that stuff like this is kept to a minimum. Outside of that, obviously giving to organizations that work on these issues here in Florida, Equality Florida is an incredible organization that's working hard to advocate for LGBTQ kids and their families and make sure that their voices are heard and that this legislation and legislation like this and directions like this, the harm is is really minimized. And then, gosh, outside of that, just being a voice in your own home. I mean, is this now going to target students who may not be able to have these conversations at home. This, and it goes hand in hand with the Don't Say Gay bill from earlier this session, this is a comprehensive attack on LGBTQ kids.

0:22:42 Sarah: It's not one-offs. It's not because they're angry this morning and wanted to pass something, you know, fiery. It's because this is part of a concentrated effort. And so I think one of the most valuable things you can do as an individual is make sure kids and families and even adults know that you're a safe person and someone who's going to advocate for them without necessarily outing them when they can't be outed or otherwise contributing to any sense of risk or harm.

0:23:10 Andrew: Yeah. What what is the current makeup of the Florida House? Else

0:23:14 Sarah: There's a Republican supermajority.

0:23:16 Thomas: I was gonna go, go down the same line. What's a realistic goal here? I don't know if this is like taboo to ask a candidate or something, like, what, you know, are we hope here in this election that we're going to be able to, um, I guess, stop these bills in some way, but if it's a Republican supermajority, what, what does that look like?

0:23:17 Andrew: Uh.

0:23:32 Sarah: So I can't speak to any other candidate's race but my own. But I can tell you my seat is District 38 here in Florida. There's A Republican coming from District 28. He's been drawn into the new 38. He is well-funded. He's powerful. He supported the Don't Say Gay bill, the 15-week abortion ban. This is someone one who doesn't have a place in the Florida House, who needs to be replaced with voice a that champions people who aren't being heard right now. And this seat is extremely winnable. Florida is an expensive race to be, an expensive state to be a politician in, but that doesn't mean that these seats can't be won. Here in 38, we're seeing a district, a new district that leans blue, that would have voted for Biden by about four points.

0:24:18 Sarah: So my seat is winnable. My colleagues around me are running in winnible, flippable seats. District 39 has a great candidate in Tiffany Hughes. Carlos Guillermo Smith, another non-religious legislator who has been vehemently against this sort of Reedy Creek Disney punishment bill in special session this week, is running in 37. There is a chance to put powerful voices in the Florida House of Representatives. And these, it's not just about carrying the house. Obviously, that's crucial. But having people in the communities who are representing these voices and are able to provide better access to the support systems that do exist in Florida, but are covered up by this kind of direction and this kindof, you know, skewed leadership, support is still there at various levels of the Florida state system.

0:25:04 Sarah: But if a legislator has no business, has no interest in providing that support to constituents, you those services will dry up and disappear. So having legislators who are invested in supporting their communities directly, especially when our districts are this small, you for a state house really able to connect at every level, I think is crucial, even if you don't manage to carry the legislative body.

0:25:25 Thomas: That is a fantastic answer. And thanks for humoring the very cynical question there. But it just, when you see these attacks that, as you said, are literally killing trans kids, it's just, it is hard to remain optimistic, but that is a great answer. And I hope that we can help you do that in some small way. So once again, Sarah Henry, of course, thanks for joining us. What should we, we have asked you, is there anything that you wanted to make sure to get out that we haven't gotten to in today's conversation,

0:25:39 Sarah: Yep.

0:25:43 Andrew: So,

0:25:50 Sarah: I know we talked a little bit about legislators just being up there to make noise and headlines with nonsense. But I think it's crucial that we don't sort of let them do that. So today, April 21st, the legislative body in Florida passed legislation that would revoke Reedy Creek Improvement District's sort of government status. For those of you not in the Florida know, that is Disney's sort of special government status where they provide infrastructure and emergency services to their own properties. It's about 39 square miles. And of course, this is being passed because DeSantis is angry that Disney came out against the Don't Say Gay bill. He got his feelings. And now, of course, him and Representative Fine, the sponsor of this bill, to need to be on record feeling big about it. But because of this rushed bill with absolutely no thought to its consequences, not only could we see tax burdens increase for residents here in Central Florida, which would be frustrating and devastating.

0:26:45 Sarah: These are costs that Disney currently handling, and there's a few different prediction models out there right now, but it looks like it could be between $2,200 and $4,500 of additional sort of tax burden per person, per taxpayer here in these regions. Just devastating. And there's like crucial impacts here. If this bill is enacted, and there is sort of a delay built into it, but if it's enacted, 356 people in this region will immediately lose their jobs because they work for this Reedy Creek Improvement District, including 200 first responders. So these very people that the Republican Party is claiming to support will be the absolute hardest hit by this legislation that was drafted and pushed through the committee and the legislative body with absolutely no thought to the consequences it's actually going to have here in the community.

0:27:34 Sarah: It's just so frustrating. The fire and emergency services, they respond to over 29,000 calls annually. And if that's eliminated, you know it's going to be pushed on to Orange County and the surrounding residents, including my district here in Seminole County. And it's just so frustrating.

0:27:48 Thomas: The book Dying of Whiteness comes to mind if

0:27:50 Andrew: Yeah like to ask an operations question on that. Right, is obviously you, we all can recognize, you sort of petty. But I want to make sure that I understand this piece of legislation. So is it that in the Reedy Creek area, right, this is where a lot of Disney employees live. And so essentially Disney has some privatized services where they're providing fire and other protection. And this would revoke that and basically force the, the local residents to then, you kind of bring in government services from nearby areas. Right. Which would then be passed on in terms of not just tax burden, but by also burdening those neighboring services, which are probably pushed pretty close to their breaking point already. Ready to do I have that right, yeah

0:28:40 Sarah: Yes. Yeah, I mean, this is an incredibly population-dense area already. Our emergency services are working overtime and stretched to the brink. And right, this area covers, like you said, it's about 39 square miles. It covers not only the parks, but the hotel reservations. I mean, the hotel buildings, their private And is a massive lift on the part of Disney every year. And this was a long agreed upon deal. This was established prior to Magic Kingdom even opening its gates, right? This was establish when the very infrastructure of the region was being established by Roy Disney and the Florida legislature, right. Right, this is a, this is something, there's literally a photo of it on the walls up in Tallahassee, because it was so foundational to this region. And exactly, it's a petty retaliatory bill that is being pushed through with absolutely no thought to how it's going to affect the people who live here.

0:29:39 Andrew: And I mean, Thomas and I, it goes without saying, we're not always the biggest fans of privatization, but I mean, it seems it as though this is a pretty common sense, workable arrangement. Right, Disney agreeing to, you shoulder the, the, the burdens of providing these services for a huge influx of workers coming in.

0:29:45 Sarah: Yep.

0:30:01 Sarah: And if there was a real, you know, if this was a real challenge, and there wanted to be the legislative body wanted to have conversations around the pros and cons of privatization of these spaces, you know, that'd be one thing. This is not that. This is a well-thought-out, established, mature conversation. This is, well, you made me feel bad, and so now I'm going to make you feel bad. It's just silly.

0:30:02 Andrew: Yeah uh Here, here. And uh, let's hope that we can elect, uh, a couple of adults in Florida in this cycle.

0:30:29 Thomas: People would like to help elect a couple of adults, what can they do, how can they support you, where should they go? Awesome.

0:30:33 Andrew: All

0:30:35 Sarah: Great question. You can learn more about my campaign and hopefully contribute at Sarah4FL.com. You can also follow me on all my social media platforms at Sarah4FL, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, I'm on all of them, talking about these issues, talking about why it matters and why it's important to have a pro-choice woman who understands the nuances this community is facing in the statehouse.

0:31:00 Thomas: Great work thanks so much for coming on Show is brought to you by Will Be Wild, coming from the critically acclaimed podcast studios Pineapple Street and Wondery. It's a new documentary series, you have to hear it. As I think we all know by now, on January 6th, thousands stormed the U.S. Capital on Trump's urging. He He tweeted, "Be there, we'll be wild." And that's where the name comes from. We'll Be Wild shines a light on the human stories left out of the January 6th headlines and goes deep into the lives of people who took part in that day. The people who saw it coming and the people who fear that the insurrection was just the beginning. You'll hear from former U.S. intelligence members who warned about the incredible rise of violent extremists in America, former soldier charged with seditious conspiracy, and a son who turned his father into the FBI.

0:31:02 Sarah: You.

0:31:51 Thomas: Oh my gosh, that story is wild. See what I did there? It will be wild because this is an incredible story. No matter how many things I have read, listened to, consumed on January 6th, there's still so much more to learn. It is such a catastrophic and crazy event that happened. And Will Be Wild is a fantastic new documentary series that you must listen to. It's great. Will Be wild is a close-up look at the four-year effort to bring autocracy to America. By And the way, I'll add four years and counting. I mean, this is going to continue going, which is another reason why you want to hear this. And the show also talks about what the insurrection could mean for the future of our democracy. Follow Will Be Wild wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen early on Amazon Music or early and ad-free by subscribing to Wondery Plus in Apple Podcasts or the Wondory app.

0:32:41 Thomas: Seriously, check out this show. It's really good. You'll learn a ton. It will be, be wild, from Wondery and from Pineapple Street. This show is brought to you by Buck Mason Clothing. So we all have our favorite go-to's, right, shirts, sweaters, jeans, the stuff you wear all the time. Well, I was getting dressed this morning and I realized all my go-tos are from Buck Mason. And I'll tell you why, they don't wear out. Their clothes are second to none, they're timeless, they never go out of style and everything I own fits great right out of the box and becomes my new favorite. Other clothes, I have a lot of shirts that I loved and then they went through the wash, wash a few times and now they just suck. Do you have that? Not with Buck Mason. Mason clothing looks good after wearing them and putting, putting them through wash after wash. They look just as good as when I first got them and they make all the essentials, jeans, shirts, jackets, all my go-tos and so much more.

0:33:32 Thomas: I love the tailored look and fit of their t-shirts. Of the shirts I got is this heavy fabric, which I love. It's, you know, I like a good thick penumbra. I also like a Good Thick T-shirt because I don't like that, you know, thin, worn out feeling, something that's not going to last. Buck Mason has that heavy tee, they call it. I love that one. I'm going to wear it to death and it won't show any signs of wear because it's so sturdy. Once you try Buck Mason, they'll become your favorite go-tos as well. Head over to buckmason.com slash OA and get a free t-shirt with your first order. That's B-U-C-K-M-A-S-O-N dot com slash OA to get a Free T-Shirt with your First Order. Buckmason.com slash OA.

0:34:22 Thomas: We've got enough time for to sneak another story in here. And for, I'm excited because it seems as though Trump has been held in contempt possibly, and I have have nothing but contempt for this Trump and his crime family. So what's going on?

0:34:17 Clip: WOAH-

0:34:30 Andrew: Well, There has been a motion made, so you know, at that state, we're not at the Uh, order has been It's, well, you know, it's, it's always, uh, a, a happy call for general consent, okay, it's, uh, it's agreed, yeah, this has now been fully briefed. So this is the New York Attorney General's civil complaint against Donald Trump and his crime family. Right. Letitia James. And this is about principally the overvaluation of Trump properties, and this is an interesting motion because it it kind of gets at a question that that people ask me about fairly often, right, which is, do you go about drawing inferences when you're in the discovery process and you're dealing with a bad faith actor, but you're not dealing with Alex Jones, right, like Alex Jones, it's super easy when you

0:34:39 Thomas: Ah, dang, I got to jump the gun. Sorry. Can I say, wait, can I second the motion? If I second it, then it's good, right?

0:35:34 Andrew: Say, you produce a 30(b)(6) witness, a corporate deposition for somebody who knows about your finances, and you put up, you a guy who is an Infowars, uh, you editor who, like, reads stories on the air, and you ask him how much money is in the Infowars account and he's like, I don't know, right, that, that's real easy, and that's, and why those sanctions in those cases were sort of knocked down, you no doubt about it. I guess I'm saying Donald Trump is a more crafty litigant than Alex Jones. That's not a statement I thought I would ever be uttering professionally in any context.

0:36:10 Thomas: It's a true race to the bottom and I hope everyone loses. But

0:36:14 Andrew: I agree. But here's where we are, seems like Donald Trump is acting in bad faith in connection with discovery requests. Right. And some is this is why it is interesting, because a lot of the evidence is to interpretation. Right? So when you say, give me all of the documents that you have and they say, OK, we absolutely will do that. We have none. Right. You know, all ofthe documents thatyou have that relate to the valuation of your properties. And you're like, yep, sure. Absolutely. We and I'll quote from the exact language. Right? Personally made or caused others to make a diligent search of all of Mr. Trump's relevant records for materials sought by the subpoena. And for each document, I was unable to locate any responsive documents that are in Mr. Trump's possession or custody. That feels like maybe you're hiding something.

0:37:08 Thomas: I mean, are they getting by on this Trump mob boss thing he does, which is no email, know anything, just phone calls, you know, I mean, I guess it's not impossible that he wouldn't have, like, documents because he doesn't read, I

0:37:23 Andrew: So there are a couple of things. There are a few ways to break that down. The And first is when again, all of this sort of lends some color to understanding the discovery process. So a request for documents is a document you serve on the other side. And Right. It says it first it defines terms. It sets out the temporal limitations. Right, you know, from X date to Y date. Make it You clear exactly what documents you want, and then you list numerically, right, document request number one, all documents in your possession, custody, or control that refer or relate to the valuation of any property by DJT Holdings, I'm right? Making that one up, but that probably something like that is their number one. And Trump and his family stonewalled on that for a very, very long time.

0:38:12 Andrew: They moved to quash. Ultimately, there was a court order and the court said, we're denying your motion to quash. You are to respond in full by producing all responsive documents by March 31st. Instead of producing all of those documents, is again straight from the, from Tish James's filing, Mr. Trump did not comply at all. Instead, he served a, quote, response on the Office of the Attorney General, raising objections to each of the eight document requests in the subpoena based on grounds such as overbreadth, burden, lack of particularity. He further asserted, based on his objections, that he would not produce any documents responsive to the subpoena because his counsel could not find any such documents and because his counsel's information and belief that if such documents exist, the Trump Organization has them and the Office of the Attorney General will just have to wait until the Trump Organization completes its ongoing document production to get them.

0:39:04 Andrew: That's not the way discovery works, It can be if you are a non-party, right? So, for example, if person A is in an auto accident, sues person B, and person B wants to get the medical records of person A and issues a third-party subpoena to person A's doctor, right, person A'S doctor might say, number one, we're protected by PIPA. So unless my patient releases me, I'm not going to produce any documents because that would violate doctor patient confidentiality. And also, I don't have anything to do with this case. You guys are suing each other, right? Like, you know, any relevant documents, the medical records might not be the greatest example, but, you get it from the plaintiff, get right, it from a party to the case. So, in other words, that argument is valid if you have a good reason to say, don't put this burden on me. But your burden is to produce, right? Like, you cannot be a litigant.

0:39:35 Thomas: Hmm. Yeah. When They Say documents, you say how high, or So

0:40:03 Andrew: Exactly right. Exactly Right. Right. Here's how Tish James put it, which I just love. This court's order was not an opening bid for a negotiation or An invitation for a new round of challenges to the subpoena. It was rather a court order entered after full briefing and argument during which Mr. Trump could have, but did not, raise any of the purported objections or assertions he has now raised. Under settled law, a party is not permitted to delay proceedings through seriatim submissions to challenge an investigative subpoenas. So that ship has long since sailed on Mr. Trump's ability to raise any new objections. They

0:40:11 Thomas: They Filed a motion for, did I stutter? Such

0:40:39 Andrew: They filed a motion for a finding of civil contempt, okay, and, here's the remedy that they're seeking, they are seeking of a daily fine on Donald Trump until he produces all responsive documents, in the amount of ten thousand dollars a day, so way less than Alex Jones, which, right, they've described as a sum sufficient to coerce his compliance with this Court's February 2022 order, and an award to the Attorney General's Office of the fees and costs associated with filing this contempt motion, to be determined when it's done. So, we get our costs back from having to force you to do this, and we want a contempt order of $20,000 a day until you're done. That's what got filed. Trump's lawyer in this case is the soon-to-be-disbarred Alina Habba, whom we have talked about now. I am not suggesting soon to be disbarred for what she has written in this case, I will let you evaluate that, and I will tell you, right, this is, um, slightly higher legal quality than some of her other work that we've seen, and Her It's

0:41:43 Thomas: A Low Bar, such a lower bar Andrew, oh

0:41:45 Andrew: It It really, really, really is, um, so, uh, the, first argument, right, is that the subpoena itself, right, says, uh, that if you have information, uh, that are in your control but not your possession or custody, you shall promptly identify the person with possession or custody, okay, that's a standard instruction.

Additionally, you need not produce documents in the possession, custody or control of the Trump Organization if such documents have been previously produced to this office during the course of this investigation, and you stipulate that the Trump Organization produced documents can be used as if those documents were produced by you, okay.

Um, Alina Habba highlights the first half of that, she says, look, we objected that we were not going to produce documents because they were in the possession, custody or control the Trump Organisation, and you told us that we could, and that's not True. What they said was, we told you that you didn't have to produce duplicative documents, right? You didn't have to produce documents that the Trump organization, if they have been previously produced to the Attorney General's office during the course of this investigation, and that you stipulate that you're not going to challenge their authenticity and admissibility on the basis of chain of custody. So right, you have to do both of those things. So this seems to me to not be a fantastic argument for we're allowed to say, nope, Trump org has them go pound sand.

So Habba's argument is, first, you have to demonstrate for civil contempt. You have to show that it is warranted by clear and convincing evidence. We've talked about that standard before, right? That is, if preponderance of the evidence is 50.1 to 49.9 and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is 95 to 5 or 90 to 10,

0:42:43 Thomas: Right.

0:43:38 Andrew: Somewhere in the 90s to somewhere in the single digits, preponderance of the evidence is about a 75, Right? It means you have to be pretty certain, not all reasonable doubt, but more than just it inclines more one way than the other. Look, and let me be honest with you, this chokes me up a little bit inside. Give Alina Hub a credit for at least opening with the right argument, right, which is, hey, this is a high standard, make sure that you, you judge, are convinced. Yeah.

0:43:43 Thomas: Good.

0:44:10 Andrew: Yeah, I'm trying Compliment Sandwich Although that means I'm gonna have to find another compliment later and I'm Not sure that Uh, it's

0:44:09 Thomas: Job, good Job, Alina Habba, whoever you Are No Yeah It's a, it's compliment piece of toast, there's no, yeah

0:44:23 Andrew: Compliment toast, there we go

0:44:25 Thomas: The compliment is a saltine and the thing you're putting on the toast is a pound and a half of butter, I think

0:44:31 Andrew: That sounds delicious, I don't know what, well, a pound and a half, that would be, that would be a lot of butter. Then what we have is the, you he said, she said of, we really did. We looked. We didn't find any documents. And, you Know, despite feigning surprise and outrage in its motion papers, the office of the attorney general was fully aware that respondent was unlikely to be producing any responsive documents, But rather would permissibly rely upon the Trump org's productions. On December 3rd, 2021, a mere two days after the O.A.G. affected service of its subpoena, counsel for respondent Ron Fischetti had a conversation with the office of the attorney general, which he confirmed in a follow up email stating, I believe the documents that you are seeking are in the possession of the Trump or and not in the position of my client. The O.A.G.

0:44:33 Thomas: Pound and a half of butter on a saltine, okay, all Right, sure, oh

0:45:21 Andrew: Even acknowledges in its motion papers that respondent does not use email. That's your point. Nor does he use a computer or any similar device for work purposes. Can we just again pause on how unbelievably fishy that is? That's, right, not a thing you should expect, right. There are plenty of, you know, billionaires in their 70s, uh, and I would suspect that all of them use a computer. Not If you

0:45:46 Thomas: But Again What Are we going to do, suspect that Trump might not be on the level, Andrew, I Mean, I think this He knows that as a crime boss, which he is, this is The best way to operate and there's not a damn thing it seems like we can do about it, or Can We

0:45:47 Andrew: Yeah Well Yeah Well And That's why Well, and that's why that's why I wanted to flag this as something to watch, right? Because this gives us an opportunity, right, where you have two competing assertions of fact.

Right, assertion number one, Tish James, New York Attorney General's office, um, you guys are, you know, playing a show game, moving stuff around, lying, delaying, refusing to answer, saying, I don't have any documents, but, you know, the the folder that's marked Trump Org that also sits on my desk, uh, may have those documents in it, but you'll just have to wait like, or, you, is is the court going to say, well, I don't, I don't know that we have enough to sort of draw that uh adverse inference here.

Um, and and I always like it when you get the opportunity to introduce, you know, a judicial judgment in there because it helps, it helps me calibrate, right, like, okay, does does everybody view this the same way, right, like, am I the only one here that this looks fishy and suspicious to, or are we the only two, right, uh, or, you know, what does, it does a judge look at it and go, no, we can read between the lines as well as anyone. And this very plainly seems to be bad faith. So I don't know.

0:46:56 Thomas: Hmm. Yeah.

0:47:12 Andrew: Said, couple of days ago is when the the Trump family filed their opposition. I've read a fair amount of it to you in this episode, right? It is the, no, we don't have it. And, you know, you don't rise to the appropriate legal level. The AG's office will get a reply brief. If I were them, I would file it sooner rather than later because, you know, the other side's entire game here is delay, delay, and uh, uh, and we will continue to file it. So I'm hoping we got out a little bit in front, um, the Trump response, you didn't really make the news at all a couple days ago, uh, when Tish James files stuff, yeah, her office usually issues a press release, so you know, we'll see. Um, we'll see if that happens, and then, uh, and then we'll see what what the court decides to do in terms of issuing civil contempt, issuing a remedy at all, ordering the parties to come back, clarifying its motions, saying, no, no, obviously we meant X. I'm very, very curious. So I wanted our listeners to be able to follow along.

0:47:48 Thomas: Good. Yeah.

0:48:10 Thomas: What can happen? I mean, if we're feeling, uh, hopeful, optimistic, and want to root for something good to happen, what's, what's the worst thing that can happen to Trump? Oh,

0:48:20 Andrew: The worst thing that could happen to Trump would be the court says, we think that you have willfully refused to answer in turnover documents, and we're going to impose a fine of $10,000 a day until you do that.

0:48:32 Thomas: We need that judge from that other thing

0:48:33 Andrew: Oh, man, we definitely need judge from Bridgeport, Connecticut. It is weird to me that in that request that the attorney general's filing made no mention of the Alex Jones litigation, right? It was filed after that.

0:48:33 Thomas: From Alex Jones. Ah, Hmm.

0:48:47 Thomas: Oh, do they do they tend to do that?

0:48:49 Andrew: Would, in the the sense that when you were asking for, uh, large sanctions, right, and ten thousand dollars a day, you know, again, I know for Donald Trump that's pocket change, uh, but when you're asking a court to do that, um, citing other similar cases I would think would be really helpful, and being able to say, yeah, like, look, a court down the street, I mean, because, you know, Connecticut is pretty darn close to New York, uh, just ruled that it, uh, was reasonable to have escalating fines of twenty five thousand dollars per day. Yeah.

0:49:17 Thomas: It did the job, and he got some of that money back, right? But that's okay, that's fine, it was meant to make him do the thing, and it did all right, well, we'll hope for that, and uh, thanks for the wild card, squeezed it in, everybody all

0:49:19 Andrew: Yeah. Yep. He did but that's fine and he did, he's at for the depot. So yeah, just got in just under the wire.

0:49:33 Clip: Thank you for being a friend, yeah, travel down the road with me, say we started from the bottom now we're here girl,

0:49:42 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our top patrons, our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats on patreon.com law enjoying all the goodies, the Law'd Awful Movies, the ad-free episodes, unlimited, uh, I was gonna say fame and fortune, but just friendship, I think, just everything. You get a lot of stuff as a top patron. Let's thank our third quartile, uh, or I guess for you, the fifth octile. I Why don't you start us off, go ahead, possibly,

0:50:04 Andrew: Thank you too. I just finished my last law school class and graduate next month. Wow. Congratulations. Also, Philly live show 2022, yeah, I, I'm very, plausible. Seattle Pete, another plausible destination. Vaccinated Aussie in Germany. If I get the next T3BE right, can you top up my supply of Vegemite and Tim Tams, please? I love both of those. I fell in love with the Vegemite on toast when I was in Australia. Don't eat it very often, but, you know, every once in a while. Stormy Decisis says, read Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota series. Not always a joke, just good advice. Okay. OK, the coin is rigging T3B with a Chinese thermostat controlled by an Italian satellite. All right. Who let Mike Lindell into the patrons? The chunkiest of shout outs goes to this crank. Venomous animals may correctly be described as poisonous. Check your dictionary.

0:50:59 Andrew: Darth Mandy Pants, Robert M. Lou practicing 80s Florida law, Miami Prohawk Vichay.

0:50:59 Thomas: Yeah, because like, if you eat some, a venomous snake, and consume like, the venom in there, that's also poisonous, right, I don't know, that's just my, off the top of my head, don't, think, yeah maybe

0:51:14 Andrew: That that seems that seems plausible to me. I would I would go with that. Bob Loblaw's Law Podcast. Ball Arena Live Show After the Cup. Polly Hernandez. Donate seized Russian oligarch yachts to 1-877-MEGA-YACHTS-FOR-KIDS. 1-877-MEGA- YACHTS-For-Kids. This episode is supported in part by a grant from the Impossible Hamburglar Foundation for Volcano Lair Science. Better living through magma.

0:51:36 Thomas: That's for kids, oh my gosh,

0:51:47 Andrew: That is exceptional. They had to delete all the spaces to get it in, but, uh, outstanding. Patreon name, Ethical Thomas the Real, ET Jason. Copas, Lawful Copter says America, where we want our children to breed but not read, Bob Coburn, objection, the witness is a badger, good one, stop calling him uncle Frank, Nate Drex has to call him dad, and Ian Hamilton, take it away, sixth octile, maybe, maybe, maybe even a slightly better octile than... I don't know. It's going to be hard to top the octile I just read.

0:51:47 Thomas: Nice, yeah yeah we'll see we Don't talk about Bruno, no, no, no, no, you're welcome for the earworm, civilpoliticsradio.com, fries at 7 p.m. Eastern on Valley Free Radio, definitely not an MSNBC spy, sexual anarchy, new band name called It, John Bilderback, Jennifer Kratch, Mike Hudson, not a namer of dragons, Jeff Galbach, great crimer, stop, Aluata slander my friend's cousin, mixed Coke with Cop Rocks, he died. Steven Baltic-Catay-Sandoval, slowly turning the wheels of justice to grind the grain that makes the cones for the churned ice cream. Philip Kizer, Andrea the Arbitrarian Capricious, Payne's Trumpet, seriously though, live show in Minneapolis. Geyer-Surgif, Prawn G plus Air, then Sure plus Set, yep, please read all of it.

0:53:06 Thomas: Joke all you want, but does your law office handle RV problems, Metacon seven, I'll I'll skimp this one, the patron obviously made zero effort to be interesting, and abscion, thank you so much, third quartile and the final quartile including the song, next, next week, can't wait, no.

0:53:11 Andrew: No.

0:53:24 Andrew: That is my favorite part of all the quartiles. You singing. The band Europe.

0:53:29 Thomas: Can't, can't you guys we gotta wait, we gotta wait till we earn it, don't remember I

0:53:32 Andrew: Did I tell you my Europe, the final countdown story? I can tell you during a Q&A at some point then.

0:53:39 Thomas: Will leave this in, remember to ask Andrew next Q&A about his, uh, final content story.

0:53:41 Andrew: Yeah.

0:53:46 Clip: Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar will eat you.

0:53:52 Thomas: Now it's time for T3BE answer time, real friggin' property, Andrew, you didn't want to let me have one, let's see how this went, no.

0:53:59 Andrew: I tried, Tom, I, I just felt you would feel like, uh, I

0:54:03 Thomas: You go with you go with it, as you play it as it lies, Andrew, I I am not heath I'm the anti-Heath, okay.

0:54:06 Andrew: Did I did play it as I cannot I, I, I cannot tell a lie, uh, this was the next question up, so a sister and a brother own property as joint tenants, victim of a car accident has a judgment against the sister after court found that she was negligent in causing a car incident that injured the victim. Victim properly filed the judgment and has a lien on the sister's real property. Then statute in the jurisdiction says any judgment properly filed shall for 10 years from the date of filing be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered. I need to tell you that is entirely irrelevant to answering the question. So before the victim took any additional action, the sister died. So who has an interest in the land? So you analyzed this question, I think, really perfectly, right? You were like, a joint tenancy? A joint tenency means that the two parties own the property in common and they have what is called a right of survivorship. So if one joint tenant dies, the other one takes the tenant's entire interest in

0:54:46 Thomas: Right

0:55:13 Andrew: The land.

0:55:11 Thomas: Yeah, it doesn't Go to the airs, right, okay.

0:55:14 Andrew: Right. That's exactly right. Does not go to the heirs. You correctly excluded B. It goes directly to the brother. So then the question is, is that transfer encumbered or disrupted in any way? Right. And to do that, you have to look at the 13th century exceptions to what this is called unilaterally severing a joint tenancy. And that is one that changes a joint tendency into a tenancy in common and

0:55:14 Thomas: Got that ah uh

0:55:46 Andrew: Allows for somebody else to have an interest in that property. So, facts of this question, you would think ordinarily when somebody dies, their debts are extinguished. They're not passed on to your heirs. You pass on your assets, not your debts. But here, as you point out, there is not only a judgment against the sister, but a lien on the property. And so the question is, does that lien sever that joint tenancy? Is it a thing that can pierce through that right of the brother to get the whole property? Property, and, um, the answer to that is, maybe surprisingly, the answer is no. So there so the answer is A, and the reason is because there are only four ways that you can pierce through that joint tenancy, either you can give the property away, right, during your actual life, didn't happen here.

You can sign a contract of sale, right, so you can sell it as well. You can have what is, what, what is described as an actual judicial sale by a creditor, i.e. a foreclosure on the property, or you can grant a mortgage on the poverty, right, in the jurisdictions that allow that. So this was pretty close to the third one. Because, right, there was a lien on the property, but the debtor did not take the step while the sister was alive of moving from "I have a lien on your property" to "I am going to foreclose on the property if you don't pay me what you owe me." And

0:56:25 Thomas: So it's a, okay. Sure oh wow

0:57:17 Andrew: So the failure to do that means that at the time the sister dies, her interest in that property disappears.

0:57:28 Andrew: Yep. Brother takes over the whole interest. And so think about this from the brother's perspective, right? The creditor has no relationship to the brother whatsoever, like he's a terrific driver.

0:57:27 Thomas: Wow just evaporates, yeah, yeah

0:57:40 Andrew: Like it's only the sister who's, who's bad at this thing, and so, uh, that interest is extinguished when the sister's interest is extinguish. So a little bit counterintuitive, you ruled A out right off the bat. It does make some sense, and, and it's real property, so making some sense is, I think, uh, as good as anyone can could ever possibly do. Well,

0:57:36 Thomas: Yeah right wow wow makes sense yeah I don't beat myself up too much about the real property ones, however, I could have had this one, I, I think, uh, I think I could have gotten there, so a little bit beat myself out slightly, just minor, minor bruising oh thank you, well, let's find out which, obviously a lawyer got this one right on T3BE

0:58:10 Andrew: I still love you let's Well, Thomas, as you know, I'm a precious little cinnamon bun. But given that this T3BE was recorded on 4-20, I think I understand enough to declare Bart Ruppel this week's winner, who writes, "To be blunt, it's A. Joints are tightly rolled. I assume he means joint tenancies. If only one owner passes, the other can bogart it automatically. If one owner stashes it, the owner is responsible for the cabbage. Be careful who you join tenancy with, but the surviving owner doesn't hold the bag for side deals." I'm not entirely sure what all of that means, but definitely it was A, that seems like the right analysis, and so everyone, let's give Bart Ruple a follow on Twitter, that is at B-A-R-T-R U-P-E-L, and congratulations, Bart, on being this week's lucky winner. Until then.

0:59:09 Thomas: That's our show, thank you so much for listening, everybody, thanks again to Sarah Henry, what a great interview, uh, exciting stuff there, and we'll see you for Rapid Response Friday, hold.

0:59:17 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.

0:59:51 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.