OA632: Alex Jones's Lawyers Still Don't Know WTF They're Doing

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:01:18 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 632, I'm Thomas, that's Andrew, how are you doing?

0:01:24 Andrew: Am fantastic excited to dig into the unbelievably strange world of Alex Jones again, slightly squicked out, but, you Know, we'll get some help.

0:01:33 Thomas: It's a car wreck that I guess this show can't look away from.

0:01:40 Thomas: Looking forward to it, and it's always a good excuse to have Morgan Stringer on, Ace Associate, looking forward to that. Well, why don't we get on over to that call, let's do it. And we are joined by Ace Associate Morgan Stringer, how's it going Morgan,

0:01:48 Andrew: Let's do it.

0:01:49 Clip: I don't like them putting chemicals in the water, that turn the friggin' frogs gay, Hey.

0:01:58 Morgan: Um, I have chosen to throw myself into a deep, dark abyss for no reason, so I Andrew′s gonna have to, build you a mental hospital or something for me, I

0:02:03 Andrew: Was going to say, I appreciate your use of the word chosen there that helps for future liability purposes. So yeah, yeah,

0:02:13 Thomas: You were voluntold, is that what we're saying here,

0:02:16 Morgan: During the the Alex Jones trial in Texas, I, um, decided to do a, a Twitter thread because I was very upset with like networks like Law and Crime and just letting their comments go wild and people just putting out a bunch of disinfo. And I know that people don't necessarily, you either understand why certain elements of a trial are important. And then other people, it was, you know, oh, I don't have time to like check in on this, but I'm hearing, know, these you things from different people. So I decided I did a Twitter thread on it and people thought that it was really useful. So I did it again for, I guess, this trial and for the rest of my life, every time Alex Jones gets sued. So could

0:02:49 Thomas: Oh, that could be a lot, so

0:02:49 Andrew: No, but you are you are doing fantastic work on Twitter. We promoted it on Twitter, but I will say it over the air. If you are not following Morgan, she is at most ring M O S T R I N G on Twitter and her live tweeting is uh a candle in a dark deep cave so uh oh my

0:03:11 Thomas: For those of us who don't follow every, you know, moment of Alex Jones for sanity purposes, can you remind us what trial is this, why is it different than the other trial, know, is it the same? Is it different charges? What's going on?

0:03:23 Andrew: Seems as though really the through line here for understanding how the Connecticut trial is going to differ from the Texas trial is that everything is going be viewed through the prism of that Unfair Trade Practices Act claim that wasn't present in Texas. And so you're going to see a lot of different questions and a lot different connections being drawn about the commercial enterprise of... And we saw some of of that in Texas, but you're really going to dig into the commercial enterprise that is InfoWars and its, crackpot line of products. Is that fair?

0:04:00 Morgan: Yes. And I think there's another reason for that. And the fact is, I know that the Connecticut attorneys have, basically you what was inadvertently disclosed, right? So they have all these documents about the business practices that they didn't have before in texas um there are a few differences. So it's a group of plaintiffs, right? So in Texas, it was Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis who her son was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting in December, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut. Right. Here we have a group of different plaintiffs. Some of them are parents. Some of them are relatives of teachers who were killed at Sandy Hook. One of the plaintiffs is also an FBI agent. There were several reports that he was retired, but he is not.

I don't believe that he is any longer on the FBI SWAT team. Um, as we'll talk about, he is pretty broken up about, um, you know, what, what he witnessed on that day. So but, um yeah, so you have actually a group of plaintiffs and this trial is also going to take a lot longer, right? So, um this trial that is expected to take about a month, maybe six weeks,

0:04:09 Andrew: No, And another excellent point. So let's talk a little bit about what's going on in Connecticut.

0:05:09 Andrew: Gosh

0:05:09 Morgan: It's gonna, it's going to be a long one. It um is day three, but um,

0:05:13 Thomas: So why? Why will it take so much longer?

0:05:15 Morgan: Well, because of the amount of plaintiffs here. I, instead of having two plaintiffs, you have, you know, of this group of about a dozen or so.

0:05:22 Thomas: Oh, wait. Plus, on the last one, he defaulted on everything. So I guess that cut the time, right? Oh, he defaulted on this one, too?

0:05:28 Morgan: Is defaulted? Yes. He has. Defaulted in all of the Sandy Hook lawsuits, because for refusal to comply with discovery. It is not because there is some conspiracy against Alex Jones. It is because he refused to comply of discovery so much that he was sanctioned with a default judgment. And in fact, before this trial even began, he got hit with another sanction.

0:05:31 Thomas: Okay.

0:05:50 Thomas: Yeah, reality conspires against Alex Jones is

0:05:51 Andrew: Yeah I, I want, wantto I unpack that for, just a second, a and on multiple occasions, in multiple cases, Alex Jones was warned, was given every opportunity to produce documents and witnesses responsive to the plaintiff's request and was told, OK, this is your last chance. If you do not comply, you will be defaulted on the question of liability. And Alex Jones chose default over actually producing the required documents and witnesses, from which you may infer that those documents are worse than being liable for the damages that you caused to someone at trial. That, that's that, like, is the only inference that anybody can draw from this case, is that that those documents are so bad that you would rather, know, if it were a criminal case, essentially pleading guilty.

0:06:45 Andrew: Like Right. You are agreeing to be defaulted on the question of liability rather than let anyone get a look at some of those. And these are basic questions. So right.

0:06:54 Morgan: Yes, absolutely. I think that's an important point to make. So this sanction that they got was because it came to the plaintiff's attention that because, and also it's different attorneys in this case, right? So we saw Bill Ogden, Mark Bankston, Ball over in Texas. And this one, we have Eleanor Sterling and we have Chris Mattei and both lawyers in Connecticut, very different styles. So Mark Bankston is, you know, as much as he may try and say, you Know, I'm not much of a showman, whatever. He absolutely is more of a showman.

0:07:06 Andrew: Very.

0:07:18 Andrew: Different. Styles. It looks like. Is.

0:07:29 Andrew: Is Bankston the one who, who brings the gummy worms to depositions and eats them in between questions? Or was that Bill Ogden? Okay, yeah.

0:07:35 Morgan: Yes. I.

0:07:37 Andrew: Yeah, yeah.

0:07:37 Morgan: Believe that's Mark, um.

0:07:39 Andrew: Move.

0:07:40 Morgan: Yes, absolute power move. I, I think that the funniest thing that, uh, again, what's the funniest food, Andrew?

0:07:44 Andrew: Patreon.com.

0:07:45 Morgan: And I could, um, could eat doing a deposition, shout it out, but.

0:07:49 Andrew: Slash law, yeah.

0:07:50 Morgan: Let us know, but, um, yeah, so there's a little bit more of a difference there, and I think a lot of that is actually regional differences, right? So, in Texas, and I've noticed this from, I worked in Mississippi, so what I've seen in Mississippi trials is, let us have the gloves.

0:08:06 Andrew: I.

0:08:06 Morgan: Off a little bit, but kind of just let us fight it out a littlebit. It's kind of like differences between refs, right? Some refs let them play it out, some refs are just calling every penalty. And not to say that, the, you know, judge in Texas. She, she was more permissive, per se, to an inappropriate level. But every judge kind of has their line. So here, where Norm Pattis, Alex's attorney, is making more objections like argumentative and things to form. And, oh, I don't like the way you worded that. You know, whereas Mark, opposed, Bankston, was more able to ask these, you know, more pointed questions, like, oh, you did this, didn't you, you, it's sort of, don't, um, want to say accusatory, but letting, they, they're, let him have the gloves off a lot more, right? So I think that is, I do think that's a regional difference, because that's something I've picked up in Mississippi as well. And also this judge has, um, I would say.

0:08:53 Morgan: Judge Bellis had very like cool Texan aunt energy, but this one has very cool New England aunt energy. I imagine, you know, very Martha Stewart, very, you, she's stern, but she's.

0:09:06 Thomas: Doing insider trading? Oh, no. Sorry.

0:09:08 Morgan: Hangs out. With Snoop Dogg, but um, no, she, um, she is, you know, stern. She's like, she's no nonsense, but she also is like, oh, but I have coffee and Oreos available for everybody. You know, it's that kind of duality that I think also, so she does share that characteristic with the judge in Texas as well. Also, I'm obsessed with how she says water, I love.

0:09:08 Thomas: Yeah.

0:09:30 Andrew: Now. Now, Alex Jones has said on the air that she is a purple haired weirdo. Is any. Of that true? Yeah. And

0:09:35 Thomas: Hmm.

0:09:35 Morgan: It. No, she Does not have purple hair, unless something is severely wrong with my vision. A brownish blonde. Like, I don't, I have no idea why he said that, other than, I mean, I did notice he was drinking in that interview. So, you know.

0:09:49 Thomas: No, it's yeah. It's a demonization of like it's some radical feminist judge or something. I mean, it

0:09:51 Morgan: Yeah. Exactly, that's what, that's what also, he's trying to say is, you know, this is a radical judge, this is part of the conspiracy against me. If I were him, from last time, I would simply keep my mouth closed, but I, I, you don't think that he's capable, and we've even seen where both sides have even kind of conceded, like, they expect Alex, because Alex will testify in this case as well, and they expect him to defy the, the judge's orders, like, that, that's just like automatically kind of assumed that it's going to happen, right? And I think there's kind of a acknowledgement, um, there, I mean, it's kind of like what Reynold told the judge of the Texas case, right? I mean, there is only so much you can do to control your client, right.

0:10:32 Andrew: To, I want to cut in for a second there, again, that's, that's Raynal Andino, the lawyer we, we have referred to as Mick Mullet, who was Alec Jones's attorney in the Texas litigation, and there are times that lawyers have to, uh, either to opposing counsel or to a judge, sort of, you know, apologize on behalf of their client. But I, but certainly have never been in and do not anticipate ever being in a situation where you have to go into court to answer for why your client has violated explicit, explicit orders of the court, and sort of shrug your shoulders and look apologetically at the judge and go, yeah, well, you know, there's only so much you can do to keep this guy in line. Note that doesn't tend to go over very well with judges who are are accustomed to having their orders be followed.

0:11:17 Morgan: And she said she will address contempt when, when it gets fair.

0:11:20 Andrew: I, I. Can't wait, Morgan, I, I I definitely want to continue to dig into the Connecticut trial, but, um, I think you had something you suggested right before we started recording that, that feels kind of bombshell-y to me, feels like a really big deal, and I want to make sure we get to, one, it, of the things that discussed on the air, and that folks have had real a concern about, is the Texas punitive damages cap. Sorry, we talked a little bit about how maybe it would not be quite as dramatic as initially thought, because the assets of Free Speech Systems and InfoWars are currently pending. And so in a bankruptcy, you evaluate your claims. And so long as those claims are on appeal, you have the opportunity to say, yeah, no, they could be larger than the cap.

0:11:21 Morgan: Oh.

0:12:08 Andrew: Cap, um, but suggested that there may be other, reason, or reasons why the cap might not apply to that Texas punitive damage award. Again, let's just put, let's put numbers on it, was just about $50 million. Dollars

0:12:21 Morgan: No. Not Texans is still in concern, right? But this is for if the jury awards punitive damages here.

0:12:22 Andrew: Oh. Okay. Oh. Oh. Oh, so this is even better, I'm going to leave that in because, uh, I, it'll, think, draw the distinction, um. So this, this is a potential Andrew was wrong. I especially love this coming from my ace associate. I said on the air, I took a look at the Connecticut punitive damages cap, and it appears to be strictly tied to the attorney's fees expended in the matter, and that, that was going to prevent getting another $50 million damage verdict, or even more, or, you know, that could be handed down by the jury, but would be whacked into almost nothing, execution of Connecticut law. Tell me what you found.

0:13:04 Morgan: All right. Well, yeah, I thought the same thing initially looking at the statutes and seeing basically, oh, they're going to have to get whopped upside the head with, compensatory damages and, you know, there's going to be no punitive, right, except for attorney's costs, which aren't even punitive.

0:13:16 Andrew: Which Which, may happen, by the, you, way. Know, having a dozen plaintiffs with the diversity you talked about, greatly increases the probability that the, that actual damages being awarded are going to be significantly higher in this case.

0:13:31 Morgan: So there is another claim that the plaintiffs have made against Alex Jones that was not present in the Texas case for obvious reasons, because that is called the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. So obviously this is a Connecticut statute. And as Alex Jones has a default, it is presumed that he is liable for violation of that act. There is case law on point that says the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act permits punitive damages and attorney's fees that common law does not ordinarily permit. Furthermore, Connecticut courts have held that punishment and deterrence are proper purposes of an award of punitive damages for violation of that act. Therefore, basically, there are no caps on punitive damages, and they are permitted here.

0:13:31 Andrew: OK, Oh, Wow. And that is fantastic. I will add sort of as background that the CUTPA, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, is a, one of, you know, model legislation across the country that is part of the, the Uniform Unfair, Unfair Trade Practices Act, to standardize to this particular cause of action across the various states. And typically that applies to, you, fraudulent advertising, right. So I did not know that Alex Jones was also defaulted on his unfair trade practices, practices.

0:14:52 Thomas: Sounds like a bad idea to default.

0:14:52 Andrew: Um. Well.

0:14:54 Thomas: Lawyer pro tip. Should you just default rather than comply with very basic requests of you?

0:15:00 Morgan: Yes, but there also is case law on point that says defamation under CUTPA is sufficient to formulate the underlying basis, because they, in Connecticut, they follow what's called the cigarette rule, which is a, I love that name, but this goes back to, you think, you go back to the tobacco litigation, right? The the government started, you know, regulating the tobacco industry closely here. So this is basically what the FTC does. And Connecticut has basically the same rules. So it's whether the practice, which does not necessarily have to be unlawful, offends public policy that's established by statutes, common law or otherwise, or other of a sort of penumbra of the established legal concepts of unfairness, essentially. Also, whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, or whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, competitors, or other business persons.

0:15:53 Morgan: There is a lot of litigation under statute. And what I found very interesting is Chris Mattei, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, is actually a former assistant U.S. attorney where he was chief of a financial fraud and public corruption unit. It. He was also the director of the Connecticut Public Corruption Task Force, so it's somebody very familiar with this law, right? But again, like, they don't even have to establish the elements here because it's assumed that he's held liable, or

0:16:16 Andrew: So. Yes. But. So let me see if I can piece together, um, the default extends to, uh, a jury instruction that Alex Jones is liable to the plaintiffs for the tort of having committed, uh, unfair trade practices in Connecticut, and presumably that is, uh, advertising his crap, you, tincture of beet juice to increase male vert, virility, and, uh, you. Yeah.

0:16:47 Thomas: Does that not work? Okay, throw away the beat. You now,

0:16:50 Morgan: The Instahard. That was my favorite supplement from the Texas trial.

0:16:51 Andrew: Oh, God. No.

0:16:51 Thomas: That one works, I mean, I wouldn't, I have no idea.

0:16:57 Andrew: Opening arguments. Thomas Smith endorses. It's hard. So he's adjudicated liable on that, and then it will be a question for the jury. So the things we're looking for the plaintiff's lawyers to prove here is that in connection with that unfair trade practice, that fraudulent advertising, that was immoral, oppressive, contravenes public safety and health and morals, that sort of thing. Do I have that right?

0:16:59 Thomas: Yeah. Well,

0:17:27 Morgan: So It's more so that the, it's the defamation, how he sold multiple products, right, is going to be, I think, where that plays more of a role. And I think that's what, you know, obviously, were we still, you know, in day three. So I don't know, you know, his entire strategy, obviously, but but basically, from what I've seen with what he's tried to develop so far is I think it's going to be like, this conduct was egregious, right?

He is literally lying on air about, you know, how this, these kids didn't die, that these parents are actors, you know, causing all this harassment to come their way and harassing the parents themselves, right, you know, their affiliates, there's horrible emails from Wolfgang Halbig that he then forwarded to info war so they know he's doing this and are like, cool, man, want to come on the show? You know, so it's, yeah, it's absolutely nuts, you know, but that's the unscrupulous practice, right, and he's doing this so he can sell. Because one of the things, but I did want to talk about the sanction that they did get, was they are not allowed to use as a defense that InfoWars made no profit from lying about Sandy Hook, and they did manage to get Google Analytics documents. Now, I'm not sure where these came from, these may have been the material in that was inadvertently disclosed.

0:17:27 Andrew: Right.

0:18:41 Andrew: So there two are possibilities on that.

0:18:41 Morgan: Yes.

0:18:42 Thomas: Google analytics stuff is public, but yeah.

0:18:45 Andrew: Oh, yeah. But this is how InfoWars processed those those Google analytics. Right.

0:18:50 Morgan: And there's emails, internal emails, because this happened with Brittany Paz actually today, um, corporate representative who was paid, you 30 grand to be the corporate representative, and she's getting paid another 7,500 after this.

0:19:01 Andrew: Yeah, that's not a normal thing. Just yeah, is.

0:19:04 Morgan: No. It's not. I have never in my life, and she is a criminal attorney, which is even more wild because she's not even a business, business lawyer, right?

0:19:13 Andrew: It is bonkers. But, but to, go back to that, I know that there was, we cannot access the the Connecticut docket now that the trial is underway, it gets locked down on the court website, but I know that there was a motion in limine that was briefed and argued before jury selection, that's when site the goes dark, related to the production of Google Analytic documents. And if you listened to the, I think it was the Brittany Paz, uh, deposition on Knowledge Fight, she, she was handed a a Google Analytics spreadsheet, and might have been Bill Ogden, but whoever was the questioning lawyer for the plaintiffs flipped out and was like, are you kidding me? Like, we've been asking for everything related to Google Analytics for years, and like with everything else in this case, you've lied and said you didn't have any. And now you have a witness here who has those in their hands and actually left the deposition mid-depo to go call the court.

0:19:13 Morgan: Yeah, yes. Oh, Yeah, I remember that, but got it. It was Mark that was deposing Brittany, um, Paz, and she is not an InfoWars employee, and she's not even really a true believer, but she is kind of, she'll get evasive, but also a lot of his stuff I think she doesn't know, and I think, there's various reasons for that, right, like you don't want her knowing a whole lot, because then then she can't say a whole lot, right? And also, it appears she was told that they don't use Google Analytics. Lo and behold, Chris Mattei has pulled out doc emails where they're sending each other the Google Analytics, right? And then he, he's asked her today, he said, are you going to, you know, revise her testimony? She said, speak, I can only convey to you what was conveyed to me, is, you, you know, continues to be her answer, which,

0:20:19 Andrew: Yeah.

0:20:56 Thomas: This episode is brought to you by Talkspace. Using Talkspace feels a little like having a mental health professional in your pocket. That's because Talkspace offers both therapy and psychiatry and the ability to reach out to your provider at any time, anywhere. It makes taking care of my mental health super easy. I'm more relaxed when I'm traveling, knowing that if I need to talk to my therapist, I can just send a message from wherever I I am. Working through things in therapy can be tough, but connecting with my therapist isn't. And if you're anything like me, or the same age as me, or within a few years here or there, you probably don't like talking on the phone. Maybe you like a message better. Maybe you find messaging easier, less intimidating. Well, for that reason, I absolutely recommend Talkspace for therapy. You can sign up online and get a personalized match with a provider that's right for you, typically within 48 hours.

0:21:45 Thomas: And you can text, you can video, or you can send voice messages to your licensed therapist. Oh, that's even better. I actually like voice messages even better than text because you still get to express yourself, you know, pretty quickly and thoroughly, but you're not on the phone. That's pretty critical. So Talkspace allows you to do any of those things. And if you're someone who likes talking, you now, do that. That works too. It's incredibly convenient to have those virtual sessions from the comfort of your home.

And their therapist network is incredible. Talkspace has thousands of licensed therapists with years of experience in over 40 specialties, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse, trauma, anger management, relationship issues, food and eating, and so much more. As a listener of this podcast, you'll get $100 off your first month with Talkspace. Licensed therapist today, go to Talkspace dot com. Make sure to use the code OA to get $100 off your first month and show your support for the show. That's OA and Talkspace.com. This episode is brought to you by Mint Mobile. After years of fine print contracts and getting ripped off by big wireless providers, if we've learned anything, it's that there's always a catch.

So when I first heard about Mint Mobile offering premium wireless starting at just $15 a month, I thought, all right, what's the catch here? But after talking to them and using this service myself, it all makes sense. There isn't a catch. Mint Mobile's secret sauce is that they're the first company to sell wireless service online only. They cut out the cost of retail stores and pass those savings directly to you.

0:23:21 Thomas: Of the wireless service is exactly what I already had. So I've got no loss in quality and coverage, none of that, but I've got a huge loss when it comes to how much I'm paying. That's much lower. For anyone who is a little mad at their phone bill right now, Mint Mobile offers premium wireless for just $15 a month. Mint Mobile gives you the best rate whether you're buying for one or a family, and at Mint, families start at two lines. All plans come with unlimited talk and text, plus high-speed data delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. That's the number of Gs that we have. Again, you're getting a great deal on cell phone service, and it's 5G. There's no drawback here. You can use your own phone you already have with any Mint Mobile plan and keep that same phone number you already have, along with all your existing contacts and stuff.

0:24:09 Thomas: Switch to Mint Mobile and get premium wireless service starting at just $15 a month. To get your new plan for just $ 15 a month and get the plan shipped to your door for free, go to mintmobile.com slash opening. Opening that's mintmobile.com opening cut your wireless bill to 15 a month mintmobil.com opening

0:24:31 Andrew: So let's frame this issue a Little bit. Let's let's take a step back. And I feel like we kind of jumped in in the middle of Google Analytics here, that. And I think you did such a really nice job of laying the foundation, which is part of what the plaintiffs want to show in order to connect up the defamation of the plaintiff's to the unfair trade practices, that makes this different than the Texas case, which did not have that Unfair Trade Practices Act claim.

0:24:33 Morgan: Yes.

0:25:02 Morgan: And I can see why. I can say why they did not want her to have this, because it is damning. You can literally look at the charts where there is a spike whenever Alex talks about Sandy Hook.

0:25:03 Andrew: Is Yeah, yeah.

0:25:13 Andrew: So, yeah, so talk about that.

0:25:14 Morgan: They have had Google Analytics sent to somebody who wanted to advertise with InfoWars. This was a business called Self Lender, basically what they were wanting to do is have people take on a small debt to improve their credit. They thought it would be ideal to advertise to InfoWars listeners so you can make your own judgment about the business from that. That is what I'll say. On there. They even emailed Adon Salazar, who was the author of an article, and I'm using that very, very generously, that said, oh, the FBI said nobody died at Sandy Hook in 2014. And he gets an email basically about the Google Analytics. And it's like, gee, wonder why? It's You around that that time. And they it's very clear that there is a spike, which again, you can, I'm sure somebody will be like, oh, correlation is not causation, blah, blah. But come on, be for real. It's very,

0:25:30 Thomas: Wonder why yeah Yeah.

0:25:35 Andrew: War

0:26:10 Thomas: No.

0:26:10 Morgan: Very evident that, yeah.

0:26:10 Andrew: Yeah

0:26:11 Thomas: So, so it's not the fact that there's a spike that is the, the realization here. Cause like I said, anyone could have looked that up. It's the factthat they knew they were making money on this and they, I guess they claimed that they weren't. Is that what we're saying?

0:26:25 Morgan: And that they didn't have it, that they didn't use it. Norm Pattis even used this argument in pretrial, which I'm wondering if that's going going to come back to bite them. Issue in pretrial was, okay, well, you they were supposed to give us all these Google Analytics documents and they didn't. We found out that they existed recently and they did not hand them over. And Norm was like, oh, well we do not use them. Which again, that is not the standard for discovery. You know, know is if you used it or not. That is crazy to me. And then also clearly they did, you know, they're emailing them back and forth like, what, you're gonna say they weren't using them? Like, yes they were. Also he tried saying, oh, well, it's not under InfoWars control any more than, you know, I own Encyclopedia Britannica because I have, you know, an encyclopedia, which that would be like when and I did, um, you personal injury, if I told the defendant, hey, you know, go screw yourself, I'm not giving you the police report of the accident because that belongs to the police. Like, what? That

0:26:27 Thomas: Okay.

0:27:03 Andrew: And yeah OK. I think there is a ton to unpack there, Morgan. And I want to make that as explicit as possible. When we are talking about the use of Google Analytics, and I know you're going to talk about some of the specific testimony, what we are talking about is InfoWars' specific knowledge of marketing its products and making money in connection with the stories that got the most attention and therefore the most click-throughs.

And so, on one level, right, this was sort of left at a high level of resolution in the Texas case, right? The idea that, okay, Alex talked about Sandy Hook, that got a lot of attention, that brought in, you know, advertisers and marketers, and he's profiting off of that, and that's kind And that point was made. What we're seeing with the Google Analytics are things like, where is the source of this click-through? When someone reads, right, and you talk about a Don Salazar who was one of the InfoWars quote reporters who wrote articles about Sandy Hook that got posted to the Infowars website, these new documents show that they receive a Google Analytics report that said, said, how did people get to this article about this? A Don Salazar article about Sandy Hook. And then, and this is the most important part, how many people clicked through and bought our crap as a result of that? And then that lets you know, don't connect up with sales and we certainly, you know. Do not sell, ever hard or whatever. Insta hard, whatever the hell that was. Um, but but we

0:29:00 Morgan: Instahard, yes.

0:29:01 Thomas: Well, hold on there. We might get them as a sponsor. I don't want to

0:29:04 Andrew: Might that's insta the hard Call us, no, obviously we'd never do that. Um, but look, like, we want to reach as many people as possible, and you know, we certainly look at, you our downloads, and if one you subject is particularly interesting to folks, you could probably infer what some of those subjects are. Uh yeah, uh, and the baseball loss stuff, you know, has less traffic. Well, you know, that's that our balance, right? Of course that informs how you construct your show in terms of appealing to your audience, but that's a lot different than, oh, people click through from this article to buy our crap, so therefore we will then drive more traffic to said article. And it seems like that's really the line of analysis in connection with the Unfair Trade Practices Act, that at least from the testimony that I saw is was was being driven hard by by Chris Mate.

0:29:22 Thomas: Baseball law.

0:30:00 Thomas: So I misunderstand. These these are the actual, like, Google Analytics that would be incorporated in with your website and all that. I thought you were talking about just like he would the trend or the show would trend when they talked about Sandy Hook, but this is like actual, there's no, there's no way you would have this and be like, yeah, we don't look at it like this kind of crap.

0:30:02 Morgan: Yes.

0:30:17 Morgan: No. Yeah. Yeah, like, there's no way. There's absolutely no way. You're just like, you're running a website, especially like InfoWars, and you're you don't care about how many people are visiting your website when and when winter people buying product, right? And also, I just want to say that 33.4% of the visitors to the InfoWars site were new at the time that Salazar put up that post saying Sandy Hook was fake again. And Alex and Wolfgang Halbig were on. He's one of the people was really that pushing this conspiracy, and he also sent horrific emails to, um, Sandy Hook parents, um, hairs on my neck stand up whenever, like, I, I want to fight this man in the street every time I see or hear the contents of those emails. It is horrific.

0:30:20 Thomas: Yeah yeah yeah which is a massive business, yeah it

0:30:42 Andrew: Jesus. So Little, sidebar on that, at the, at the risk of getting derailed. Um, the plaintiffs dismissed, at Wolfgang Halbig was initially a named defendant in, I believe, both cases, and he was the quote expert that Alex Jones would go to on InfoWars to, he was there to perform, right, invented bizarre stuff, made things up to try and prove that that Sandy Hook, was was entirely staged, um, but it feels like he did not, he played almost no role in the Texas case. There were a couple of questions, uh, related to how big, and it feels like the decision was made in that case to say, yeah, we we want to kind of leave him out of the chain, because we don' want the jury to say, oh well, it's not quite Alex Jones's fault, he's just relying lying on this Wolfgang Halbig, that's the real guy

0:31:30 Morgan: Yeah and that's how it's been presented in Connecticut as well, but but also the point has been been made that these harassing emails, um, were forwarded to InfoWars. InfoWars knew about them, right, and still continued to have this guy on while he and Alex talked about, you know, how fake this was, right?

0:31:53 Andrew: Yeah well And the evidence that did come out in Texas, that I assume will come out in this case, was, you and I'm grossly paraphrasing the numbers, but it was like, here's the list of hits on Wolfgang Halbig's website before he came on InfoWars, and it was like 38, right, was, you know, a MySpace from 1994. And

0:32:09 Morgan: Oh

0:32:29 Thomas: Was Andrew's loblog before oa oh sorry I should why

0:32:31 Andrew: Right. Yeah, exactly right. Worse than that. Even lower. And then post-InfoWars was like a billion hits, right? And

0:32:40 Morgan: Yes he had, I believe, two, it was around 2.2 billion impressions the first yeah when he started talking about sandy hook in 2012 2013 right

0:32:44 Andrew: Christ. And that is orders of magnitude more than this show has done in six years.

0:32:55 Thomas: Are people so attracted to this insane, evil idea? What in the world, and

0:33:00 Morgan: To show you how far it goes, Thomas, one of the witnesses they've already had, so this is also a difference between the Texas trial, right? The parents testified at the end. And I think that probably because this trial is so long, and also, you know, you have to coordinate with witnesses, they right, had Vicki Soto, who was a teacher at Sandy Hook, her sister Carly Parisi has already testified, and she went to middle school with Carly, the sister. She went to middle school with a girl who now believes that Carly is a crisis actor.

0:33:32 Morgan: That is how insidious this is. And just to go, that testimony was devastating. So was the testimony by the FBI agent. But yeah, this shows how also radicalized I think people are becoming. And I don't know if they're going to have an expert like Becca Lewis that can trace back to where. Again, like Andrew said, Wolfgang Halbig was getting like, what, maybe three shares on his articles. And then all of a sudden he goes on InfoWars and literally it's, you know, 2.2 billion impressions that they're getting, is. And you then also the amount of new users they get. And you have to assume some of those new users are, know, you going to obviously be swayed by that, are going to go to that InfoWar store, buy a T-shirt, know, or you some supplements. So,

0:33:32 Andrew: Jesus Christ,

0:34:14 Thomas: This is why I highly doubt most of these people even believe these conspiracy theories now. I want to make it clear, this doesn't matter. Like, if you're doing an evil thing, I don't care if you believe it or not. But if you look at how much profit is made, I mean, you look at these analytics and all this traffic, you click throughs, all that stuff comes from these lies. Well, yeah, maybe you're going to just make up more horrible bullshit.

0:34:14 Morgan: Oh, exactly. That's what sells kind literally. This is I mean, and it's a problem with, you know, disinformation because these families are being harassed. Carly Parisi said she is scared to tell people, you know, where she's from and, you know, who she's related to because she has met so many people who have been like, oh, yeah, that school shooting. Did that really happen? Her husband, when he was stationed in North Carolina, he's Marine. She was at an event for military spouses, and she testified to the fact that when she was at this event, somebody asked her where she was from. And she said, oh, you know, I'm from Connecticut. And they said, Oh, that's where that school shooting happened. Did that really happen?

0:34:41 Thomas: You Yeah.

0:35:13 Andrew: Jesus.

0:35:13 Morgan: Her sister was murdered. And it goes to show how far this has spread. And then the fact that there was a man who dressed up in a Team Vicky t shirt at a Family Fun 5k. And he came there and he had a picture and started yelling about how her sister wasn't real. While he was wearing a Team Vicky t-shirt.

0:35:14 Andrew: Yeah what what is Team Vicky, what

0:35:33 Morgan: Yeah, her name was Vicky. And so it was, you know, he did that, I think, to try to get access to the event and to try to blend in.

0:35:39 Andrew: Oh oh okay oh, so it's, yeah, even more gross I was thinking that was some opposition, but yeah, like, so thought he was going in undercover. Wow, is that, that is truly disgusting, interesting.

0:35:42 Morgan: Yeah. It's, I just did want to also mention that there is a difference in style between the defense attorneys as well? So, and this is speaking back to the witnesses, so you saw in the Texas trial Renault let Scarlett Lewis speak, right, let Neil Heslin speak, there wasn't any real objections. Um, Norm Pattis does not have that.

0:36:11 Andrew: Note yeah, before you get to, that's what you do, I mean, like, just, I can't emphasize strongly enough, when you have, when you are defense counsel and you have a sympathetic plaintiff on the stand, you, you as the lawyer, do not interrupt with bullshit objections, because the jury will hate you and will take it out on on your client. And guess what, when you have a default judgment exercised against your client, they're all sympathetic, right? Like, there's... there's nothing to be gained. I was super critical of a lot of things that Reynold did, uh, because I don't think he litigated the case very well, uh, but he was not dealt a winning hand, right? Like he was dealt a pretty tough row to hoe. And And from my perspective, it seems like Norm Pettis has managed to, like, take winning, you know, take that losing hand and like bluff into a made straight flush to, you know, mix metaphors. So

0:36:11 Morgan: Yeah well, Norm Pattis is kind of red pill to an extent, right? Because he actually prides himself on, I'm the guy who defends the worst of the worst, and you can say what you, you know, Renal, I had a suspicion, was probably one of those guys that's like, oh, everybody deserves a lawyer, you know, but, know, not really proud to be, you known as the Alex Jones lawyer guy, or not wanting to present himself as if he believed, you know, Alex's conspiracies, right.

0:37:27 Morgan: So, yeah, Prettis did some stand-up comedy with his pants off and said a bunch of racial slurs, right, so So that's the type of guy Norm Pattis is.

0:37:26 Andrew: Yeah. Pettus goes on InfoWars all the time. Wait, what?

0:37:36 Morgan: Yeah, it's insane. Look up Norm Pattis's stand-up, not good if you want a genuine laugh, but it's actually quite dark and serious. Yeah, so have noted that Judge Bellis, she is kind of not wanting Norm to get into the, "Oh, this is, you Alex Jones being canceled," which was basically essentially his opening statement. Not just that, "Oh, these lawyers are manipulating these plaintiffs," but he also even went as far as to say the plaintiffs themselves are acting as partisans. Now, he did say, "Who could blame them?" But he's, he literally said, "Oh, they're exaggerating their injuries because, because they want, um, Alex Jones shut down," right. And then, of course, he did the thing of blaming the plaintiff's attorney, saying, um, "Oh, well, it's because he told the jury, 'You can stop Alex Jones,'" right, and then he was like, and then I had to respond, which, it was very disgraceful. So, um, I do want to play the judge admonishment just so we can get, um, at least a little bit of a sweetener before we get too dark, yeah.

0:38:35 Thomas: Always good to get an Oh Lordy. I hope there are tapes.

0:38:38 Clip: So, so, tell me now what your is. He's testified about how he became aware of Alex Jones, how he reached conclusions about an association of Pauline and Ben Jones, um, and he's also brought a suit to his office to find a way to help him bring the suit. It's our contention that this issue had not as largely been dead until Hillary Clinton made a campaign issue of it in 2016, blaming Jones for San Diego. I agree with that. My attorney pals, no, you may not, because I already moved on the Clinton issue, and we're moved on from that, so now you've talked about Megyn Kelly, so let's address Megyn Kelly. It's a similar issue. Well, then stay with the Megyn Kelly, and I don't want to hear it over the Clinton campaign.

0:38:38 Morgan: Um,

0:39:20 Thomas: Was

0:39:21 Morgan: But then Norm kind of conceded on the Megyn Kelly and just decided he wasn't going to mention it, and, right, yeah, so this was during the opening statement, this was obviously said, you know, outside the presence of the jury, this was, um, or it was done as a sidebar, right, but they're still mic'd up. And I just do want want to say, um, because we are getting these clips from Law and Crime, I really hope that the plaintiffs' attorneys are able to introduce some of the comments, because Law and Prime has refused to turn off comment service trial, and they refuse to moderate them, because they are getting views from this, they are giving engagement from Info Wars, people saying, "Oh, they're still actors." People people are saying that in the comments. It is dark.

0:40:01 Thomas: Did they buy the rights to this trial or something? How the... There,

0:40:05 Morgan: Yeah, they are the only people that are streaming it. The Texas trial, I used the court's website because I did not want to give law and crime the views. But with this, unfortunately, because I'm not there in person, I'm having to use their stream, right? Yeah, I really do hope that the plaintiffs are are able to at least get in, like, hey, this harm is continuing. Look at some of these comments. It truly is despicable, and I would hope that they are able to do that, as we saw that, know, you the plaintiffs in the Texas case were able to get in comments that Alex made about the judge and such, but I think that showing that people are still trying to perpetuate this conspiracy shows the continuing harm, But right? I also do want to talk about Norm Pettis and how he was talking about, you know, you can tell that he's more of a true believer. So if we could get the clip starting at, I think, 827.

0:40:52 Clip: If you were teaching parents who, family members, hear, transform their grief and rage over the death of a loved one into a powerful and effective movement for opposing gun violence and promoting school safety, including on the troops, they hold visions, they testify in for Congress and state lawmakers, they become partisans, they walk into the devices of the debate about guns in the Second Amendment, to the extent to which the state should be more aggressive in creating a safer manner. Do they overstate the harm that Alex caused them? Because they want to silence them for indelible reasons? Because he disagrees with their point of view? I would suggest you that is the case. Do they argue that? No objection? Sustained. Do want to sideload this? Just one moment, please.

0:41:43 Morgan: Then, and then you can fast forward to 10:44, you

0:41:45 Clip: You me to quit? She never absolutely had any objection, Your Honor. Sustained. Can you stop this, please? Sustained. Move on to Attorney Patterson, please. How many times did you notice how many times I objected to telling you that you and Kelly were just doing it back? Attorney Mattis, that is improper, and you will finish your opening or you will be seated. In 2017, Mattis was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on NBC. He said during the interview that Megyn Kelly would be sued. Soon, Alex had two objections to the fire. Sustained. I turn about us one more time, and I will ask for the conceiver. People loved what these fellows hated over weeks.

0:42:32 Clip: People saw them. People threatened them. People appeared in some of their homes. Each slight sentence was something to assess. I was sad and torn from a wound that would never really heal. But now, to all of all of them, what's

0:42:46 Andrew: Okay. So I just have to say that opening statement is sanctionable conduct? There are very few rules about what you as a lawyer can say in your opening or say in your close. Leave aside the fact that it is ineffective and stupid. You may not personally advocate on behalf of your client. It's one of the ironclad rules that lawyers are taught in the first year of law school. And listeners who are patrons who have heard us do a Law'd Awful Movies will know that. Right. This trope comes up when, you know, the defense counsel is like, look, I represent a lot of guilty people. But this guy is definitely innocent. Right. That's the thing you can't do for precisely that reason. Right. You can't throw your previous clients under the bus and go, well, you Know, but this one is really innocent.

0:43:34 Andrew: And for Norm Pattis to say, "You heard how often I objected during their opening, therefore you should draw an adverse inference from how they're objecting," on reasons that the jury isn't remotely briefed on, while I'm improperly advocating in my, is just, I'm shocked that the judge gave that much leeway.

0:43:56 Morgan: Yeah, it, it shows just kind of how gross it is, and

0:44:02 Thomas: Show is brought to you by click up Imagine having one extra day every week. Oh, boy, do I need that. I've said it before, but there's too many things to do. What a world we live in. There's so many good shows, so many good movies, so much good books, not to mention still walks to take and dogs to look after, for some of us. Well, possible to get one extra day every week by using ClickUp. It's a productivity platform that'll save you one day a week on work, guaranteed. ClickUp began with the premise that productivity is broken. There are too many tools to keep track of, too many things, and entirely, entirely separate ecosystems. There has to be a more productive way to get through the daily hustle. Well, ClickUp is the one tool to house all your tasks, all your projects, your docs, your goals, your spreadsheets, and more. ClickUp ist built for teams from one.

0:44:48 Thomas: It's kind of me, it's a team of one, but maybe you have a team, I don't know, a thousand plus. Well, ClickUp can handle that as well. It is packed with features and customization options that no other productivity tool has, so you can work the way you work best, whether you're in project management, engineering, sales, marketing, or HR. ClickUp has easy to use solutions that create a more efficient work environment. Join the more than 800,000 highly productive teams using ClickUp today. Use code OPENING to get 15% off ClickUp's massive unlimited plan for a year, meaning you can start reclaiming your time for under $5 a month. Sign up today at ClickUp.com and use code OPENING. And you better hurry, this offer ends soon. That's ClickUp.com, code OPENING.

0:45:35 Thomas: This show is brought to you by the Jordan Harbinger Show. I know, I'm psychic, I know that you listen to podcasts. I'm not going to tell you how I know this, I just know that about you personally. And since you listen a podcast, I bet you could always use more podcasts, If you're anything like me, you could always use Mark Podcast. Might I recommend The Jordan Harbinger Show, a top-shelf podcast named Apple's Best of 2018. Jordan dives into the minds of fascinating people from athletes, authors, and scientists to mobsters, spies, and even hostage negotiators. Jordan has a great talent for getting his guests to share never-been-heard-before stories and thought-provoking insights. As always, I'm gonna recommend an episode for you. Here's one recent episode, one of my favorites. Bill Nye. Love Bill NYE. He was on Jordan's show recently to talk about environmental changes that are threatening humanity and maintaining curiosity and renewable energy and so forth.

0:46:27 Thomas: So that's a recent episode. Bill Naye. Check it out. Jordan Harbinger Show, Episode 724, really enjoy the show. I think you will as well. There's so much there. So check out jordanharbinger.com for some episode recommendations, or you can search The Jordan Harbinger Show, that's H-A-R-B as in boy, I-N as in Nancy, G-E-R on Podcasts, Apple Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

0:46:52 Morgan: I also want to play, um, another one where you can see

0:46:54 Andrew: Tell me it doesn't get worse

0:46:57 Morgan: It does, it's gonna get dark, um,

0:46:59 Clip: They're very shrewd. You know, it came out the other way.

0:47:06 Clip: It was you who connected through there. It was you, not a way by a co-worker or someone else. And then you seconded his text.

0:47:20 Clip: And like, what the fuck? What's going on? In our world, that's not responsible. It's not my responsibility

0:47:31 Morgan: That was Norm Pattis objecting to a man who is crying on the stand. This is Bill Oldenburg. He was on the FBI SWAT team. He was responsible for clearing the school after, you know, the EMTs had gone through and everything, but for finding survivors. And he is describing that how he saw the bodies of two teachers, how he saw, you know, blood from, you know, the children that had been there. Like, this man is, you know, he was very, very emotional during this testimony, you can tell this is still affecting him to this day. And this asshole is like, objection, non-responsive. It, it shocked me. And one of the things that Norm Pattis also did was, on redirect, he asked Bill Aldenberg, the FBI agent who was testifying there, um, how did you first learn about Alex Jones, and he said, and, you know, we got a, you know, drink because you get a mention of a Joe Rogan podcast, right, he said, well, I knew he went on like Joe Rogan's podcast or something, and Norm cuts him off and says, "Oh, is Joe Rogan harassing you too?"

0:48:30 Morgan: And the immediate objection, but then, you know, as he's starting to be like, "No, I never said that," Norm and then says, "Oh, I'll withdraw." And you hear Matej goes, "Guess you didn't like the answer." Yeah, shocking.

0:48:41 Andrew: I yeah take legal advice from a podcast but uh if you are my associate having listening or participating in this podcast um berating a grieving witness on the stand not a good look um what on earth I mean I have a supposition here but like to kind of bring this all together what what do you think the strategy is if any from norm pat like why why behave this way is

0:49:07 Morgan: Well, it seemed like he also was trying to sort of like red pill the jury, which I know I kind of said that like jokingly about Norm sometimes, but sometimes not so jokingly, right? Right. But with him, you know, he said in the opening, he said, oh, Alex is the one who questioned Oklahoma City and 9-11 and big tech. And I was thinking Oklahoma City, like the only people I've ever heard a better like Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma City truthers or, you know, whatever they call themselves or white supremacists. Like that was deeply, deeply concerning to me.

0:49:41 Andrew: Okay, I, I don't to get too far down a rabbit trail here but like are you, you fucking kidding me, like that, that a Norm Pattis is an Oklahoma City truther and b

0:49:42 Morgan: Oh

0:49:50 Thomas: Yeah, call me naive, I didn'T know that was a thing that you could put truther after. He admitted it and he, there wasn't, what was the controversy? It was all, there's no, sure, yeah, mm-hmm.

0:49:51 Andrew: Uh no yeah

0:49:59 Morgan: That the feds did it. It was a controlled demolition, so that, you know, the government would come after patriots, right?

0:50:06 Thomas: I guess they found a patsy, huh?

0:50:06 Morgan: And yeah And the militias, right? Because, that's they, what the conspiracy underlies, and he, and you, know, Norm kind of did the, oh, he's just asking questions, but he also says the frogs are gay, so you know people know what he's saying is ridiculous or not, and you go and look at the Law and Crime chat and clearly not, you and he, He says he also believes that there's people that eat babies to stay young. And I'm like, hey, man, there's a whole bunch of, like, red-pilled people from QAnon who do believe that. Like, that, you, It's insane, and I don't know what, you know, of course, I'm not going to know what Norm's strategy is because he has not put on his case yet, But right? I'm sure it's going to get very disgraceful, and I've said that I've thrown myself into the abyss. I think I have thrown myself into the ninth circle of hell.

0:50:50 Thomas: Yeah, it's going to get disgraceful. Yeah, also, I mean, for one, it just could, it could always been incompetence, but if not that, I mean, maybe, I don't, one of the rules here are, do you just need one red-pilled asshole in the jury? Is that what you need, or do you need three, or do you know how does it work, I mean, could that be the gamble, is like

0:50:52 Morgan: Oh,

0:50:52 Andrew: Let me

0:51:08 Morgan: The one thing here is for compensatory damages, of course, that's going to have to be, you know, the jury agreeing, right? I do believe that that is going to have to be, that is gonna have to unanimous, right? And then they're going to, um, agree whether or not there should be punitive damages. If yes, the judge actually determines punitive damage, damages because there was a motion made by the plaintiffs earlier in the case.

The jury, they wanted the jury to be able to give an advisory verdict, which, you know, of course, the judge is free to take it or leave it, but the judge went ahead and denied that. Um, so the judge actually determines punitive damages if there are going to be any assessed in this case. Um, we're going to see, um, just how, like I said, disgraceful this gets, how many more, you know, documents from seemingly from the cell phone drop come in. Um, we'll see, you know, more testimony from plaintiffs, hopefully. We won't have any, any objections to non-responsive, because he's crying. Mean, we'll see. I mean, this is going to be a very long trial. It's going to be a very rough trial, it's going to be very emotional, but I think that there are some things that, you know, the plaintiffs could do better. I think that there's some things that they've done better than the Texas attorneys on

0:51:13 Thomas: Right

0:52:14 Morgan: Certain aspects, right? But there's still plenty of time left. So I will hopefully be updating here or perhaps, yeah, here or on my own venture. We shall see.

0:51:54 Andrew: Yeah yeah

0:52:22 Thomas: Watch 2022 yeah

0:52:24 Andrew: We will check back in Morgan, uh, thank you so much. I think you gave us not only the through line of, uh, the Uniform, uh, Trade Practices Act, uh, but also a, a deep dive where appropriate into the ghoulish nature of the representation. I will add that, you know, the Connecticut jury, uh, is only six people, so, you you are correct that that there's a unanimity requirement, but again, I don't, I like the odds of not getting a goddamn lunatic being one in six rather than one in 12, that that seems to play better.

0:52:58 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:52:58 Morgan: And again, Sandy Hook happened in Connecticut. So, you know, this is something that is local to these people.

0:53:02 Andrew: Yeah. Yep. That's excellent Another point. So I can't wait to check back in with you again. And I apologize for what this is putting you through. The firm has an excellent mental health program. So there

0:53:05 Morgan: Yeah.

0:53:15 Morgan: The end end of a month I'm going just going to be rocking in a corner um sucking down a bottle of vodka

0:53:20 Thomas: Yikes.

0:53:21 Andrew: Ah, that, welcome to the practice of law.

0:53:22 Morgan: Uh, I'm gonna start smoking. I

0:53:23 Thomas: What are the ethics of making someone subject themselves to this, boy, this is getting, this is getting hairy. I don't know, are you okay? Okay.

0:53:30 Morgan: I I threw myself in here willingly, I um, you know, and I also do want to give a shout out to the My policy wonk paralegals who did helped me find a few of these time stamps, so I did want to get them credit, it, and without them I, I genuinely would be rocking in a corner with a bottle of booze, looking but forward to going through this experience with them.

0:53:33 Thomas: All

0:53:47 Andrew: Ace Associate Morgan Stringer, everyone give her a follow, she is at Most Ring, M-O-S-T-R-I-N-G, on Twitter and absolutely invaluable, makes the firm run, and and now makes uh, this show run, and, who knows what the future holds.

0:54:05 Morgan: Who knows, perhaps um, there will be reporting on this on my own venture, we shall see.

0:54:10 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,

0:54:19 Thomas: And now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats at patreon.com/law, we are on the third quintile of yeah.

0:54:27 Andrew: The best quintile, objectively speaking. Yeah.

0:54:30 Thomas: I think we're pretty consistent, and that it all started off, thank you to Not a Last Week Tonight Producer, yeah, Supreme Court Justices Should Have 18 Year Term Limits and So Should Conrad Michaels, you gotta update that one because you know, long live Conrad Michael's, his uh, his limit, his term apparently has expired. I'd like to pay this This month's Patreon fees with a horse, if that's okay with you. Sure, Edgy Veggie, Torsten to Wolfie's Peel, Evie Huntington, Harvard Alum, No Hood, Clarence's Ginny and Tonic, Now with More Q-I-9, John Brown Did Nothing Wrong, Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association, Pablo Escargot's Heroin Snails, Don Quixote, Don't Laugh.

0:55:15 Thomas: Don Quijote may deliver you a swift kick in the ass. I learned the name of the book, okay. Brian K. Penelope is glad Sydney got sanctioned for terpsichore Angry Macface, Leo G. Still waiting for a Seattle live show. Oh, we didn't even make that happen. Alright, we'll do it. April Poff This is not the greatest patron name. No, this is just a tribute. Conrad Michaels forever. And we've Yeah, dueling patron names there. Those are definitely in conflict with the earlier one. And Lying Lions Lie on Leon, maybe? I guess, I thought that's how you pronounce that. Uh, your turn, Andrew.

0:55:35 Andrew: Conrad Michaels Forever, and A big thank you to Sir Wilfred Snibble Snabble of the Gribble Pibble, sure, the Dows, sorry patrons, we lost the rest of the names, we'll give you your shout out next week, God Is Always Exactly as Dumb as the People Talking About him, that's attributed to Jordan Love It, Jake Learned Hand Job, copyright 2022, all rights reserved, that is still such a great one, After Meeting with Putin Susan Collins Is Absolutely Certain Russia Won't Invade Another Country Again, Come On Eileen, Oh I Swear at This Moment You're Issuing Only Stupid Rulings, Exceptional Once We Had Judge Eileen Cannon, Federalist Society Weirdo Christopher Brown, I Survived the Bar So Now It's Time for a Philly Live Show 2022, I Still Want to Do Philly, It Is Incredibly Important That I Convey to You Placeholder While I Think of Something Interesting, Vaccinated Aussie in Germany, If I Get the Next T3BE Right Can You Top Up My Supply of Vegemite and Tim Tams Please, Carl Jack R Willie, I don't

0:56:04 Thomas: What?

0:56:52 Thomas: And

0:56:53 Andrew: Know, Darth Mandy Pants, Free Fred from Colorado Keep Colorado an Abortion Access Haven with LGBTQ Legal Protection, Support Colorado Statehouse Dems Absolutely Crucial Message, Seattle Pete, Lou Robert M, and Blah Blah Blah's Law Podcast, very tricky, very tricky, thank you all so much for supporting the show over patreon.com/law at the five dollar Hall of Famer level or above, we we love you more than everyone else and that's the fact.

0:57:24 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:57:30 Thomas: Now it's time for T3b, Thomas Takes a Bar Exam answer time, first one with a new book, very interesting, definitely different, you can tell, different writing style, uh, how did I do on the first crack at this book?

0:57:40 Andrew: Yeah. This question was, a man is riding a bicycle that is too small for his size. He rides carefully around a bend in the road, but suddenly smashes into a parked car. Owner of the parked car sues for damages. The owner will win under what conditions. So here are the things you're looking for in the question. He's riding carefully around the bend. That tells you that this is not ordinary negligence, He right? Has not failed to use the appropriate measure of care. He's been careful.

0:58:11 Thomas: Note on that, I understood, I, that that's what the bar is trying to get you to say. But it sucks because language wise, as a normal person you'd be like, well, he's writing carefully until the part where he smashes into a parked car, any normal human would be, well, I guess he stopped riding carefully at that part of the sentence. But I think bar exam wise, you're supposed to think that he carefully smashed into the car.

0:58:16 Andrew: Mm hmm.

0:58:35 Andrew: Correct, it, and I'm glad we did this, I'm glad we've got, you know, a different uh, voice here, because this is very, very typical of how bar exam questions are written, this is feeding you part of the fact pattern, and you're supposed to place, oh, this is a hint about the fact pattern of the question above, this makes sense as a use of the English language, so when it says carefully, that means carefully, as in not negligent.

0:59:03 Thomas: And I want to point out, I actually did gather that. I don't know if it affected me getting the answer or not, but I actually have figured out that that's what the bar questions do to you. It's just very tough, tough to deal with as a human being, but uh, you know, I'm making my, making it work.

0:59:04 Andrew: Yep. Yeah.

0:59:18 Andrew: I'm impressed, that's, that's the way you're supposed to answer, so that's the cue to tell you to bring up the part of your brain that is devoted to the negligence per se say rules, right? That's what you were looking for in puzzling through, which is, hey, under what conditions, would I, am otherwise acting in accordance with my duty, you be able to draw the inference that a defendant is liable in tort? And the answer is negligence per se when you are violating a statute or regulation, right, a law or a regulation, without an excuse, you were automatically considered negligent if, uh, that violation was the cause in fact of the plaintiff's injury, right, and uh, the statute must be designed to protect against the type of accident or harm that was caused by

0:59:29 Thomas: The one that's kind

1:00:14 Andrew: The conduct. It.

1:00:14 Thomas: Of what I was saying, I just, who knows if I got it right, but

1:00:17 Andrew: It. Absolutely, is so you went with either a, uh, the, bicycle rider rounded the bend in violation of a law, which you ultimately threw out, and you threw that out for the right reason, not specific enough, right, the, the the bicycle writer is, you know, their cell phone is illegally, but passively downloading music, right, you know, you set that, and then you're right, like, okay, you're breaking a law, but you're not breaking a law that is related to crashing into a car, so you don't draw that inference, at all, to the answer that you went with, see the bicycle rider rounded the bend in violation of a cycling law, and I'm sad to tell you that's also not specific enough, and a right, good way to think about This is, no. Suppose a much more direct example. Suppose he doesn't have the proper reflector on his bicycle, right? What

1:00:36 Thomas: Yeah, Oh, like, yeah, the registration of your bicycle was off, okay. Yeah,

1:01:10 Andrew: Kind of injury is the reflector law meant to stop? It's meant to stopped like a car from running you over at night.

1:01:16 Thomas: So, there's a category of law called safety law, apparently, well,

1:01:20 Andrew: When they mean safety law, that that's exactly what they mean, right. Right. Like that, the type of accident or harm that is related to your conduct, something that says, hey, you can only ride a bicycle in traffic that is of a certain size or what have you. Would you would want something even more specific than just the cycling law. You want it something that is tied to the fact that harm resulted.

1:01:47 Thomas: I, reject that, because, picture the thing you just said, the reflector, that's a safety law, but it's designed for a different element of safety. I think cycling law is actually better. I don't, I think it's as good actually is what I should say. I think B and C are pretty equal. I rejected B because I didn't know there's like a category of law called safety, whereas it feels like there would be laws that are related to cycling. But I don't know. Okay. I guess I feel like I had everything right about this, except whatever the language barrier is here.

1:02:18 Andrew: I that's, I think you did a great job of analyzing it, and the question is just what level of specificity we get down to, and I think the implication is right, that the safety law is a subset of the cycling law, yep.

1:02:31 Thomas: Okay, yeah it's slightly more focused. You know, or it's, okay, all right. Fair enough.

1:02:34 Andrew: Because they have to be by they have to be violating the law, so it has to apply to cycling, and then it's a cycling safety law as as opposed to any kind of cycling law. Fair point that you could argue that B is also not good enough because the reflector, but then it's the most good of all of your answers.

1:02:40 Thomas: Yeah, yeah but it's the most good I guess. Fair enough, it's a dastardly exam. I feel like I gave it my all and I gotta get to know the language of the new exam. It's a long drawn out process.

1:03:04 Thomas: There you go. All right, well let's find out who this week's big winner is, who, uh, more correctly, uh, got to the Venn diagram of the Venn diagram of the Vann diagram of bicycle law or whatever.

1:02:59 Andrew: So you did. I Oh my gosh, Thomas, this week's winner has to be Ilan Wol on Twitter, who writes a side-splitting parody of the Safety Dance, you know, from Futurama. That dance wasn't as safe as they said it was. I am not gonna try and sing-slash-rap it with the song, but if you wanna do that in your head, go right along. Here are his lyrics: "We can ride where we want to, even if the seat's not wide, but if we go out into the road the suit might tan our hide. Well, we can drive, we can just stay in control and follow the safety law, yes, it's the safety law." That is fantastic, and congratulations, Ilan, on being this week's winner. Lots of other notable entries, a great, uh, but wrong deconstruction from our friends, uh, that at the National Security Counselor's Twitter, and lots of other good reasons.

1:04:08 Andrew: Lots of people played along, but, you know, you can do a send-up of the safety dance without us getting sued by men without hats. We are incredibly impressed and enjoy your never-ending fame and fortune. Everyone, Ilan's won once already, so you should probably be following them already. But if not, they are at I-L-A-N-W-O-L on Twitter. Congratulations.

1:04:31 Thomas: That's our show. Thanks so much to Morgan for severely, uh, injuring her mental health in order to bring you that Alex Jones content. Uh, definitely thank Morgan, uh, profusely for that, and we'll see you next time.

1:04:45 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.

1:05:18 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.

1:06:07 Morgan: Up. So another difference between the Connecticut,

1:06:09 Thomas: Okay. I'm sorry. I have to go one sec. I don't what the fuck's going on today. Jesus fucking Christ, what, so there was a dog fight happening, I was like, I can't, we can't do this right now, I don't what the fuck's happening, um, but I separated them and hopefully it'll work out, sorry about this, I don't know whose fucking idea any of this was, uh

1:06:14 Andrew: Okay go ahead get to?