OA674: Norm Pattis Is Taking A Little Mandated Break From Lawyering

Transcript

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

0:01:17 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 674. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How are you doing, Andrew?

0:01:24 Andrew: I am fantastic, Thomas. How are you?

0:01:26 Thomas: Well, I'm not looking forward to being replaced by a chatbot, but, you know, it was always going to happen, let's face it.

0:01:31 Andrew: I will pay you $1 million. Have you seen this Twitter challenge? It's some nutball.

0:01:39 Thomas: No, I haven't. What are you talking about? What is it?

0:01:41 Andrew: It's somebody who's lying and saying, oh, I'll pay a million dollars if a lawyer will take our chatbot script for a Supreme Court argument and give... which just tells you that the person making that a like has never seen a Supreme Court oral argument. Right. Because, you know, it'll go.

0:01:53 Thomas: Oh. Yeah. Because you can just go up and just, anybody. They have like an open mic night at the Supreme Court. Gets to take their turn. I am going to go play Wonderwall, by

0:02:02 Andrew: Yeah. Well, God, you would open mic. Mike Knight is a tremendous segue to, of course, it's going to be a Liz Asode. I

0:02:15 Thomas: Yeah. Oh,

0:02:18 Thomas: Eliza Soad. How's it going, Liz Dye? Welcome back to the show.

0:02:21 Liz: Hey, guys.

0:02:22 Andrew: Hi.

0:02:23 Thomas: Glad you didn't resolve to never come back or anything. You didn't, you know, wise up over the holiday break and think, what am I doing with these guys? No, it is great to have you.

0:02:31 Liz: I'm glad I haven't been replaced by ChatGPT yet.

0:02:35 Andrew: Quick thing to jump in front of Liz also was it was actually the one who brought this to my attention this morning. But exactly as we predicted, the Supreme Court denied cert in the Brunson versus Adams.

0:02:50 Thomas: Way.

0:02:51 Andrew: We're going to. Yeah. One line on in the middle of, you know, summary denials of certiorari.

0:02:58 Thomas: But I thought that was going to change the landscape of democracy as we knew it.

0:03:02 Andrew: Yeah. Roger Stone even had, you know, this lunatic McFringe guy on his podcast. And I believe I believe Liz signal that with, hey, we got a live one here. But

0:03:15 Liz: I tweeted about it this morning, and I've already been called a child molester by fans of this lawsuit, so it's been a good time. A funny guy, even Norm Pattis. If you have missed his stand -up routine, his standup routine is based on how funny it is that he's a white guy and he can say racial slurs, including the N -word. So ha ha.

0:03:25 Thomas: Sure. Wow.

0:03:35 Thomas: What?

0:03:35 Liz: Oh, also he drops his pants during his routine. I'm not kidding.

0:03:37 Andrew: I was gonna say Like there's... there's the phrase showing your whole ass, but I don't think that that's what, uh, it meant with his, uh, with his stand-up.

0:03:44 Thomas: I Don't, I think I, I've heard this said a few times, and I can only deal with information this fucking by just pretending it doesn't exist. I'm not good with cringe, I think I just, you know, memory hole it, so it's new information every time you tell me.

0:04:00 Liz: Maybe it'll go in the show notes for all of your listeners who want to see Norm Pattis' whole ass. Actually, everybody's seen Norm Pattis's whole ass this week because he's getting disbarred.

0:04:00 Andrew: Fair.

0:04:10 Andrew: Whoo.

0:04:10 Liz: Womp womp. Yeah, sad face. He's Alex Jones's longtime lawyer, and I'm sure most of your viewers will remember he represented him in that Sandy Hook case. So actually, it turns out there is something worse than losing a billion dollars for your client on national television, and it is losing your license to practice law. So, Okay, just sure your listeners will remember this case was filed in 2018 by about 20 family members of children and faculty murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, after which sentient shitpost Alex Jones and his guests postulated on InfoWars that the children had never existed or that they were still alive and their parents were crisis actors in a hoax perpetrated by the Obama administration to gin up support for gun control. The families faced years of harassment, and some were even forced to leave their homes, which resulted in enormous emotional trauma. And that's

0:04:12 Thomas: Wow. How Much.

0:04:32 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah.

0:05:04 Liz: One of the reasons there were three protective orders imposed during this case, because the plaintiffs, their confidential medical, psychological, and employment records were produced during discovery. And they had no confidence that Jones, who'd already proven himself to be beyond shame or common decency, wouldn't disseminate their psychological files on his show. There were these, there were these protective orders in the case.

0:05:26 Andrew: I mean, we should note in with that, that Jones felt free to speculate about their mental, physical and other health conditions on his show during the trial. Right. So this was this is not a far fetched, you And

0:05:38 Liz: Right.

0:05:41 Thomas: Are you allowed to do that as a lawyer? I mean, can you just be like, like, yeah, they're, you know, because I mean, that doesn't seem like out of the realm of a defense again for something.

0:05:46 Andrew: No.

0:05:47 Liz: Well, this was the Connecticut trial, but in the Texas trial, he did speculate on his show that the plaintiff, Neil Haslin was autistic. And Um, there was a, and he had been told not to do that. So that was one of the things, of course, like Mark Baxter, the attorney played that in court, But OK, let's go back to the Connecticut case, because Jones had a succession of lawyers there because he's like the world's worst client besides Donald Trump. And Norm Pattis himself had tried to unsuccessfully to get out of the trial, get out at the case right before the trial. But Judge Barbara Bellis wouldn't let him go because that would delay the proceedings even further.

0:05:59 Thomas: Ah, gotcha.

0:06:21 Andrew: Side note, no of those series of lawyers was professional Nazi apologist Mark Randazza. So, yeah, that guy is just a scumbag and I have to call him out whenever I can. Yeah.

0:06:28 Liz: Touching that one. Okay. To this Connecticut.

0:06:34 Andrew: Sorry. I'm just I'm just saying when when a judge says

0:06:34 Liz: So, all

0:06:37 Thomas: How dare you talk about Nazi scumbags when we're Alex discussing Jones and, Sandy you Hook deniers.

0:06:41 Andrew: No, I think it is important context to know under what circumstances a court would be like, oh, no, Norm Pettis must remain in this case. Like those are what I would consider extraordinary circumstances because because the judge denied Mark Randazza the right to to enter pro hoc vice in Connecticut, right? So

0:07:00 Liz: Because, well, at the time he had a pending bar complaint against him in Nevada. And so the Connecticut judge wouldn't let him enter. But in fairness, his partner, Jay Wolman, did enter and leave the case, I think twice. This was like a hot mess. And part of it was that Jones was hot to delay the trial. And he tried a whole bunch of different ways. As your listeners will recall, he made strategic use of the bankruptcy court to screw the plaintiffs out of this thing. And that's actually how this thing went sideways. Jay Wolman's going to come back. Mark Randazza's not going to comes back because, as we said, he was denied pro hoc because, well, whatever. OK, so as we all remember, anybody who's paying attention, Mark Bankston was the Texas plaintiff's attorney. And he had that incredible moment where he confronted Alex Jones on the witness stand and said, you know, he'd gotten the contents of Jones's entire phone from his lawyer.

0:07:52 Liz: So the reason that Norm. Yeah. So the reason that Norm is not going to be lawyering probably anytime soon is because is the sequence of events that led up to that. So back in April, Jones put three basically worthless LLCs in bankruptcy. The LLCs were subsidiaries of his main business, Free Speech Systems, and the LLCs were named defendants in the Texas and Connecticut suit. So that had the effect of automatically staying the state court trial. So like in plain English, if an An entity declares bankruptcy, state proceedings against it are automatically put on hold. And Jones's plan was to use that delay to force the Sandy Hook plaintiffs to get bought off. So his plan was to set up a litigation settlement trust within these Alphabet Soup LLCs and fob the plaintiffs off with a piddly $10 million.

0:08:44 Liz: It was like two dozen plaintiffs. And obviously, since we've seen two of the four trials go to fruition or go to a jury, the jury thought that that claim was worth a billion and a half dollars, which is substantially more than the $10 million that he wanted to give them. And money that he was offering them after he sort of dragged them around for four years wouldn't have come close to covering their attorney's fees. It was ridiculous. But at that time, Jones's bankruptcy lawyer, Kyung Lee, castigated the plaintiffs for their ingratitude because he said they'd been litigating for four years, and here he was finally putting cash on the table, and they should just thank him, which I actually was listening to the trial driving my car, and I did not drive it off the road, but that was amazing.

0:09:07 Andrew: Yeah, I commend you.

0:09:27 Liz: Yeah, it was amazing, so that didn't work. The plaintiffs immediately dropped the LLCs as defendants in the state cases, and the cases went back to trial in Connecticut and Texas, and actually, speaking of attorneys who bring credit to the profession, Bankruptcy judge Christopher Lopez eventually kicked Lee off the second bankruptcy case because he failed to disclose that he'd represented the BS LLCs and also Free Speech Systems at the same time when they were sort of possibly, you know, against interest. So back in April, when he was on the case, Lee was trying to get himself up to speed. And he sent Jones's lawyer, Jay Wolman, an email asking for some of free speech system's corporate communications. And Wollman said he'd sent all the evidence he had to Pattis on an external hard drive, and he cautioned that some of it was subject to the protective orders.

0:10:16 Liz: And Lee said to his associate, can you look into this protective order? And the associate dutifully came back and replied to the group email, pointing out the very passages in the protective order which might pertain. And Pattis was on that email chain, so he had constructive notice, even if... Pattis then forwards the entire hard drive to Lee. Now, just to make really, really clear, the fact that Lee was an attorney didn't mean he had a right to see the Connecticut plaintiff's medical records.

0:10:30 Thomas: Yikes.

0:10:44 Andrew: Right.

0:10:44 Liz: He was not the attorney of record in Connecticut, or he wasn't even an attorney of record in the Connecticut case. Pattis, however, was the attorney. And he had an affirmative obligation to take care that the protective documents weren't improperly disseminated. And in fact, he'd been reminded of that multiple times by Judge Bellis, especially when he brought up the information from those protective records in a motion to depose Hillary Clinton. For real, like a motion to depose Hillary Clinton, let's not let's stop here.

0:11:11 Andrew: We covered.

0:11:12 Liz: This is backcountry.

0:11:11 Thomas: Hey, did that motion work? Was that, was that successful? Did we, how did that go?

0:11:15 Liz: I feel like it wasn't. I didn't go back and look at what I'm pretty sure I would remember if Hillary Clinton had.

0:11:20 Thomas: Yeah, we'll dig up the transcripts of Hillary having to testify in this.

0:11:24 Liz: That that happened for real. Okay. So in the spring, Andino Raynal, known to your listeners as, go ahead, say it. You know you want to say it, Andrew.

0:11:32 Andrew: Oh, McMullet.

0:11:34 Liz: McMullet became the 10th lawyer to enter his appearance in the Texas Sandy Hook case. Right, right. Why? Why should there be one lawyer for anything? Thing. So he too emails Pattis and he says, hey, what do you got for me, Norm? And Norm says, go ask Lee for that hard drive.

Which Lee cheerfully hands over, despite the fact that he and Pattis had this written communication confirming that it contained highly sensitive protective documents that could not be distributed to anyone who was not an attorney of record in the Connecticut case, which McMullet was not because he was an attorney in Texas, not Connecticut.

So McMullett then uploads the contents of the hard drive to his firm's server, including all of this stuff, including the copy of Alex Jones' phone, including all of the psychological records, including all of these internal emails. And remember, Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems got themselves default judgments in both Texas and Connecticut, thanks to their years -long refusal corroborate with discovery. So those trials weren't about whether Jones defamed the plaintiffs and caused them emotional distress. They were about how big a check he was going to have to cut them.

0:11:41 Andrew: Wow. Yeah. Right. Right, the way, sanctions involving the failure to turn over documents such as these, right, there were multiple depositions of Alex Jones in which he was like, I don't use email and I don't know what that is. And last time I had email was just over. And, you know, here he had turns out lots and lots of emails. So

0:13:01 Liz: And he had Google Analytics showing that he knew, he'd asked on the days when he talked about Sandy Hook, whether his sales went up and whether the traffic on his site was up. And he had texts that pertain to that, all of which he denied having in deposition. So the contacts of that hard drive were like not so helpful to him. Also, they shouldn't have been disseminated to McMullet. So in the lead up to the Texas trial, McMullet tells his assistant to send Bankston, Mark Bankston the plaintiff's attorney in the Texas suit, some piece of evidence.

But instead the assistant sends a link to the entire contents of the hard drive, like whoops. And then Bankston sees it. Bankston's like, wow, this is like many gigs of data. And I just asked you for like three things. What the hell is it? So Bankston sends an email the next day and he says, I forwarded this email to my paralegal to download this production. He asked me to take a look because it was a huge amount of material he was downloading, and he wanted me to verify that he needed to download all of it.

I looked through the directories, and they seemed to contain a lot of confidential information, such as depositions and records relating to the Lafferty plaintiffs, that's the Connecticut plaintiffs, and material which appears to be work product or confidential. My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this. Let me know if I am correct. To which McMullet says, please least disregard without mentioning the stuff that Bankston had already downloaded. So that's a screw up, right? But Texas rules civil procedure

0:13:35 Andrew: I'm counting.

0:14:25 Liz: 193.3d. Yeah, no, it's one or two. Okay. So the rule says you have 10 days to fix this kind of inadvertent cock up. It says, if the party producing thus amends the response to assert a privilege, any party who has obtained the specific material information must promptly return the specified material information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege. So that's a lot of words that don't mean I'll send you an email that says, please disregard and you'll delete everything that you've got. That's not an assertion of privilege. It's just like a wish and a prayer that Bankston wouldn't figure out what he had.

0:15:01 Andrew: Yeah.

0:15:01 Liz: Like he figured it out.

0:15:03 Andrew: And jump let me in for a second. And anyone who has ever worked in a BigLaw firm in any capacity has had to send or has been on case in which one of your partners has had to send a letter regarding inadvertent production. Right. Happens. You right. Accidentally.

0:15:22 Thomas: Because technology exists and lawyers are boomers. I mean, come on.

0:15:25 Andrew: Right. Yes. Yeah. That's basically it. Right. Like, yeah. But but fair. Right. And what will happen is, sorry, we sent you this. It was supposed to, you know, it inadvertently has document Bates numbered 507. We ask you to delete that in its entirety. We're going to replace that with the following. And you do that. You always, I don't care how acrimonious your relationship is with opposing counsel. You do that every single time because, you're your senior partner is probably a boomer as well and like you're going to screw it up at some point if not in this case at some point in the future so it's just I want to flag a couple of things here. Number one, not only that it is a a matter of, uh, you know, sort of common courtesy to allow the other side to withdraw anything that that they've inadvertently produced, but also that as a lawyer you are familiar with with how you do that.

0:16:22 Andrew: Right. Please disregard is not how you do that, right. And so there's a little bit of, we just, we talked about this aspect when it came out when we were covering the Texas case. A little bit of of Mark Bankston being cute here, and I'm a hundred percent in favor of, when you're dealing with a bad faith litigant like Alex Jones, yeah, absolutely, hold them to the letter of the law. Right. Right.

Like be as cute as you want, because these people have acted in outright bad faith and, you know, they don't, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore. None of this would have happened. But Right. McMullet, if Andino had said, you know, had sent out a letter that specifically complied with Texas rule 193.3 and said, you know, dear Mr. Andino, on X date you were inadvertently provided with Y link, which has now been shut down. That link contained privileged attorney attorney client communications and attorney work product. Please disregard, delete that link and everything you've downloaded on it, and we will provide you with the documents that you were supposed to get. None of this would have happened. But, and you know, not only didn't do that, he didn't do both parts of that, right? Like it's, it's not just a, you shouldn't be thinking of this as like a 13th century Saxony. You have to get the words right in the right order.

0:17:41 Thomas: Well, yeah, because it seems reasonable as a non-lawyer that in this circumstance where, you know, you're producing a whole bunch of crap, there's tons of stuff, you don't know what you've accidentally produced. It would make sense that that would be a time where you need to be really specific, specific, like here's specifically what you're not allowed to see in this, you know, what could be, I don't know, tens of thousands of things. Like it makes sense that you wouldn't just be like, oh, that's bad, don't, don't look at that.

0:18:02 Andrew: Yep. And and also the second half, which was he still, as far as I could tell, never gave Bankston the actual documents he was asking for. Right. Like you still have to do that part. Right. When you inadvertently produce something, you have to substitute it with the thing that you were supposed to produce. So, yeah,

0:18:12 Thomas: Oh.

0:18:22 Thomas: Sorry. I meant to give you nothing.

0:18:24 Andrew: I

0:18:25 Liz: Mean, I hear what you're saying, but they also I mean. The reason that they got defaulted was that they that the lawyers, and not Dino, because he was only on the case for like eight minutes before the trial, but that this production was proof that they had absolutely lied, that his prior counsel had failed to disclose. I'm not sure that any, you know, I know what you're saying, but on the other hand, why should Bankston play by the rules when these people had not played by the rules for four straight years. And here was proof that they hadn't done it. I mean, I think that there is an argument that he could say this isn't privileged.

Having seen it, he could, you know, I mean to comply with the Texas law, Dino would have to say this is privileged and Bankston could say, no, it's not. It's, it'S discovery that you didn't hand over, but okay. Right. Like I understand from a rational practicing lawyer perspective, exactly what you're saying. But I mean, clearly, Andino didn't want to do that. Like, I think he knew what the law was. He appears to have made a choice not to comply with the letter of the statute in the hopes that in the in the heat of the trial, Bankston wouldn't realize what he had. That. So anyway.

0:18:50 Thomas: So.

0:19:18 Andrew: Think I think that's right. I agree with that.

0:19:40 Liz: Oh

0:19:41 Thomas: I. Just want to make sure I understand, are we on the record in establishing you two as lawyers, Liz Dye would would be way more petty? Is that what I'm to understand? Just making sure.

0:19:50 Liz: My God, the pettiest bitch, the pettiest bitch. Okay. Anyway, so here's what happened. And then, and then, um, on the witness stand, uh, Bankston confronted Jones and said, did you know that your lawyers messed up and sent me your entire cell phone texting history 12 days ago? Adding, you know what perjury is, right? Um, which was, which is great. And that guy should never buy another beer for the rest of his life. And Then McMullet sat there like a locks and did Did not. Like, great job, dude. Like didn't say a word.

0:20:18 Liz: Didn't just sat there playing with his pen. What do you think, Danny?

0:20:12 Andrew: I will not. I in fairness, look, I was super critical at the time of, you know, McMullet's failure to do anything during that entire Texas trial. But then we saw the other end of that. Right. Like we saw Norm Pettis objecting all the time in the Connecticut trial. And that went way worse for Alex Jones. Like, it served the purpose of reminding the jury of, oh, that's why these guys are assholes. Right. So I think that was, to be honest, part of the overall strategy that Andino was like, look, these people hate you. And more I remind them of why they're going to hate you, the worse it's going to be. So, uh, we're just gonna not do a whole lot. I

0:20:43 Thomas: Yeah.

0:21:03 Thomas: Well, not only that, when you're this bad of a lawyer, the less you do, probably the better. You know, you're like a doctor from the 1500s. It's like, if you do nothing, it's probably the best case scenario for your patient. Worst case is you're opening their skull.

0:21:15 Andrew: Forgot the leeches. Yeah, not bad.

0:21:18 Thomas: Yeah,

0:21:20 Liz: OK, well, I'm still team petty bitch. But of norm, approximately five minutes after that witness stand confrontation, Pettis emails Chris Maddy, the attorney for the Connecticut plaintiffs, and says, Chris, give me a call. I learned moments ago that I may have violated protective order. Or norm. Like, you think? Every lawyer in America.

0:21:23 Thomas: I have may have committed some light treason. I

0:21:48 Liz: Possibility. Right. So half the lawyers in America were like getting goosebumps and having a panic attack because they'd already seen the video. And anyway, Bankston told Maddie about it, like when he realized that he had the Connecticut plaintiff's records, which, by the way, he immediately deleted because he, like McMullet and Lee, was not an attorney of record in the Connecticut case. He didn't have a right to see those either.

0:22:10 Andrew: That's what you do. Yeah.

0:22:12 Liz: Judge Bellows was not happy. And at the conclusion of the case, she referred the matter to the Disciplinary Council. So here's a little snippet from the Disciplinary Council's memo responding to Patis' argument that the plaintiffs weren't actually harmed by having their medical records passed around in violation of the order. So, like, no harm, no foul. We're cool, right? So no, actually not right. They said, there is no no expertise beyond a general practitioner or law school student, for that matter, required of an attorney involved in a high profile nationally reported case resulting in a billion dollar judgment involving one of the most horrific incidents in Connecticut history to comply with the plain language of a protective order regarding highly confidential medical and psychiatric records. So, no, no harm, no foul is not going to fly.

0:22:56 Thomas: Wait.

0:22:58 Liz: And Judge Bellis was also not cool. She said the respondent was on notice of the need to safeguard the records by virtue of the court's written order stating that the court, quote, "had grave concerns that the Connecticut plaintiff's confidential mental health and other medical records would be improperly disseminated." Plaintiff's counsel's repeated concerns, both orally and writing, regarding their client's confidential information, and Wolman's written warning to the respondents on March 28, 2022. Despite all of this, the respondent incredibly knowingly released the records to Lee and Raynal. Not only did he improperly release the records to Lee and Raymal, but he did so carelessly, taking no steps to designate the materials as protected by court order, mark them as confidential, or inform the recipients that they were in possession of sensitive and protective documents.

0:23:45 Liz: Ultimately, the respondents' improper dissemination of the records, in conjunction with his failure to maintain the records in a safe and secure manner, led to the Connecticut plaintiff's most private information being improperly released to Lee, Raynal, and then Bankston, none of whom were counsel of record in any of the three Connecticut cases. So, no great job sticker for you, Norm. Well, she didn't say that, but I did. Anyway, so Bellis found that Pattis violated several of Connecticut's rules of professional conduct, including rule 1.1, competence. Rule 1.15, safekeeping property. Rule 3.4, fairness to opposing party and counsel. Rule 5.1, responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervising lawyers. And rule 8.4, misconduct, which is, which has a lot of rules.

0:24:28 Thomas: There's a rule that's just competence?

0:24:30 Liz: How

0:24:30 Thomas: Or been covering cracking lawyers for years, and you're just now telling me? I'm just finding out there's one that's confidence, because I feel like there could could have been a lot more disbarments before to this. Oh, okay.

0:24:38 Liz: Well, but yes, this is Connecticut. So it's only this in, in this state. Um, anyway,

0:24:45 Thomas: Other states they don't care if you're competent or not. I got it. Okay. Do

0:24:46 Liz: Anyway, apparently

0:24:49 Andrew: This is a form model rule of professional conduct. It says a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client, period. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. So, yeah, it's thing.

0:24:49 Liz: Not. Apparently not.

0:25:11 Liz: Well, it's not going to be a real thing right this minute for Norm because Judge Bellis has suspended him from the practice of law for six months, if indeed it ever was. It's because he's suspended from the process of law. And she cited a couple of aggravating factors, aggravating. For one thing, Pattis already got dinged in this very case because he filed an affidavit, which the Danbury District Grievance Panel characterized as sloppy and an exercise in bad judgment. Impeachment, which is not a plus on your resume. Similarly, the plaintiffs here, remember these were victims who had lost their children, were particularly vulnerable. And so he had a special duty of care. Moreover, Pattis invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when questioned by disciplinary counsel, which the court construed as him not taking responsibility for his actions.

0:25:57 Liz: And finally, Pettis has been practicing law for 30 years and he bloody well knows better. So the court said, simply put, given his experience, there is no acceptable excuse for his misconduct. So and, you know, I would agree with that one. I don't know what you think, Andrew. Pattis says he's going to appeal and he's asked the court to stay this suspension. Judge Bellis asked the disciplinary counsel to weigh in by Tuesday. I Don't know when this is going to air.

0:26:13 Andrew: Yeah.

0:26:25 Andrew: Would be yesterday.

0:26:25 Liz: So they ruled yesterday. I'm going to guess that they weren't down with it. But, you know, we'll see. And she's promised a rule on the stay request by Friday. But in the meantime, Pettis has yet another problem because he's representing Joe Biggs, one of the Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy for storming the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. And that trial is ongoing this week. Even So if the suspension is stayed, he's probably going to have a problem if he's been admitted to practice in D.C. pro hoc vice, because the D.C. bar is really aggressive about suspending reciprocal admissions. So you can ask Rudy Giuliani about that one who got, you know, booted in D.C. even before he'd been booted or finally booted into his home jurisdiction of New York.

0:27:06 Thomas: They They intend to revoke pro hoc vice if it's like, "Oh, we did this because we thought you weren't a scumbag, now you don't get so." I remember one of the cases, and I think you said like that admittance is a privilege, not a right.

0:27:14 Liz: Yeah, yeah.

0:27:19 Andrew: We've talked about a number of courts sort of becoming more proactive in saying, you know, yeah, it's it's a privilege to be before this court. So we talked about Lin Wood in Delaware, for example. And this Mark Randazza in Connecticut.

0:27:37 Liz: Get admitted. But you know whose pro hoc did get yanked was when he got disbarred, because this isn't actually the first. I mean, it's it's crazy to think that these these militiamen are not getting great lawyers. But Jonathan Mosley was a lawyer. I believe he was one of the lawyers for the Oath Keepers. And he got disbarred. And I believe it was Judge Amit Mehta said, you got to go. You can't represent these Stuart Rhodes anymore. I think it was Stuart Rhodes. I know it was one Of the Oathekeepers.

0:27:44 Andrew: Yeah.

0:27:47 Thomas: Yeah.

0:28:06 Liz: So yeah, that's the thing. I mean, it's a problem because the trial is ongoing. I don't know what Judge Timothy Kelly is going to to do. But it appears that he's got co-counsel in that case. And luckily, Norm has a Twitter account. So even if you don't have time to listen to his podcast or if he hasn't put it out yet, you can know what he's thinking. So when Judge Bellis' order dropped, he tweeted, edited my profile this morning, deleted lawyer, sad trombone. And today, yeah, he's a funny guy, he briefly put up a poll asking if he should stay on as a commentator since he's not going to be be able to represent Biggs anymore. So that seems fairly definitive. And that's generally how I decide my career is.

0:28:06 Thomas: Is He trying to do the Elon Musk thing of like, should I no longer, too?

0:28:49 Liz: Exactly. And he finally deleted it. I don't know why, whether it was, you know, he lost that poll. But anyway, he now says, too many bots, that's it, too much AI. So he now say, looks like I'm going to be out of the Joe Biggs case. I may stay to work as a commentator. As one of you pointed out, I need Mr. Biggs' consent to do so.

0:28:53 Thomas: Many bots. That's

0:29:07 Liz: Yeah. Yeah, you do, dude. I mean, yeah,

0:29:07 Andrew: That should not be something one has to point out.

0:29:12 Thomas: Like Andrew telling me, well, Thomas pointed out that I need to wear pants in court, so I guess I gotta wear pants, that's

0:29:19 Andrew: Don't you hate pants?

0:29:20 Liz: Do you, do you think you need your former clients, um, sign off before you can comment on his case? I mean so, that's, that's cool. What do you Think Andrew, do You Think He Needs to Ask Mr. Biggs?

0:29:21 Thomas: One of you pointed out oh boy yeah

0:29:33 Andrew: I guess the model rules of professional conduct don't apply to him anymore since he's no longer a lawyer, I mean, deleted I I I will

0:29:39 Thomas: Hey welcome to the fold. Norm rules of conduct haven't applied to me ever. It's great, I could be as shitty a lawyer as I want because

0:29:48 Andrew: You, this, uh, I am severely disappointed that our favorite podcast, the Law and Legitimacy Podcast, has somehow managed not to put out an episode. Right, like look, I did, you got nothing but time, Norm, and

0:29:59 Thomas: Oh I mean he did the big logo rework. Like, if that was an investment, you know, I can't believe he hasn't gotten to use that new one yeah dramatically changed the show in my opinion. I mean, geez,

0:30:06 Liz: Change the Color?

0:30:10 Andrew: To say I am, I'm really really angry with our listenership because uh, Norm has has had this podcast for years, and I had posted on social media the link to his Patreon, which had 13 patrons, and there's... there's now 19, and there is no doubt in my mind that those six new patrons are OA listeners, hate listening. Shame on you for giving Norm money. Shame on you. Shame in the farce that is the Law and Legitimacy Patreon project.

0:30:44 Thomas: I guess due process doesn't apply to our listeners, huh? Imagine the crime they committed and you're shaming them for it. Holy moly. I'm going to report you to the bar.

0:30:48 Liz: Wow. Yeah. Seriously. I

0:30:45 Andrew: So am absolutely shaming them. We are the second best thing that's ever happened to Norm Pettis. So I just want to point that out.

0:30:53 Liz: Mean, couldn't sure that it's probably just fans of his stand-up routine subsidizing

0:31:03 Thomas: He have six moms? It could be that.

0:31:06 Liz: Does, no, he's got he's got pronouns, he's some ridiculous joke about pronouns in his bio that's like my pronouns are you, wish I'm

0:31:10 Thomas: Course he does. That's exactly the level of comedy I would expect from one Norm Pattis. That's amazing.

0:31:19 Andrew: I'm Oh, well,

0:31:20 Liz: Pronouns, r, are you kidding, got it He's so funny no a r e slash what, I bet, I bet you his comedy is hilarious. We'll have to check it out.

0:31:24 Thomas: That doesn't matter.

0:31:24 Andrew: Is he spelling out the R U?

0:31:33 Thomas: It's got to be so good.

0:31:34 Liz: He's a writer, contrarian, and stand -up comic.

0:31:35 Thomas: At the very least, I'm amazed that those idiots can't realize that that joke's old. I get that that's funny to them because they're monsters and stupid, but can't they realize, like, okay, I don't get up there and I say, like, think about my wife. Take my wife, please. Other people have already done that. Do they not recognize that? Nope, they're still doing the I identify as joke. Okay, cool.

0:31:55 Liz: What's the deal with pronouns?

0:32:00 Andrew: View, the gist of this was the hey, Chris, this is Norm might have violated protective order. Call if you're not too busy. That is unbelievable.

0:32:10 Liz: Possible. I

0:32:07 Thomas: Yeah. Good. Stuff. So you worth predicting actual disbarment, like real, real consequences. It's gonna happen, maybe.

0:32:20 Liz: I think he's built up really a great reservoir of goodwill with Judge Bellis or the appellate panel. So I don't think he is going to get bailed out. I mean, you his client already got sanctioned.

0:32:22 Thomas: Right. But For now he's just suspended, right?

0:32:34 Liz: I Mean it's for six months, right? So he's suspended for six months. He'll come back and and his magic. You

0:32:34 Thomas: Okay. Oh, So he's not disbarred? What is actually gonna happen to this guy? And win, can somebody fill me in? Wait,

0:32:44 Andrew: Starting now, uh, question is, is the clock going to run right now on the six-month suspension? He's asked the trial court to stay that, uh, pending his appeal, and I'm sure. Who are the primary argument he's going to give is, well, you know, I have this Nazi in D.C. that I'm representing and it'd be real bad if he didn't have the worst lawyer on earth defending him. And like I kind of I know, like I'm kind of sympathetic, like, you Know, I don't I don't know which either way. It's a win win. Right. Right. But if I were gambling here, I would say Judge Bellis has just watched years of idiot shenanigans and is is long past, you the benefit of the doubt to Alex Jones or his lawyer. So I think that we yesterday, as of when the show goes out, that disciplinary counsel is going to weigh in. I think disciplinary council is going To say, no, like, this is a bad dude. And you should, the consequences should start now. And I think Judge Bellows has promised to rule by Friday.

0:33:13 Thomas: Hold on, I agree with him, yeah.

0:34:01 Andrew: And again, he can move the Second Circuit on appeal also for injunctive relief. But, you know, that's something, Thomas, you and I, you've been all over. You know the standards for winning an injunctive relief on appeal. And you

0:34:13 Thomas: Yeah. It's likelihood not to be a complete piece of shit, I think is what it is, right?

0:34:17 Andrew: Kind of. And I that's going to work. So and I said Second Circuit, that would imply federal. You know, this will be the Connecticut appellate, intermediate appellant court. But either way, right, the same standard, injunctive relief, likelihood of success on the merits, and some sort of irreparable harm to norm. You know, again, his best argument is, you will be depriving a Nazi of his choice of counsel.

0:34:35 Thomas: I need to represent a Nazi. Yeah. Okay.

0:34:43 Andrew: And there, and are there's a fairly robust, fairly robust, maybe to, maybe too strong. But there is a body of case law that basically balances that out. That right, like grifters and con artists use when they want to be admitted pro hoc vitae or to continue. They will say, well, you know, the client has an ironclad right to be represented by whomever they choose. And the courts have been like, no, like not quite ironclade. Like, yeah, clients do have a right to pick their own lawyer. But, you know, we also have a right not to have people who are grossly incompetent or dismissive of the rules continue to practice law with no consequences. So I'm with Liz. I think he's going to get confirmed starting Friday, that the mandate is going to come down and he will be, you as Liz quoted from Norm's tweet, deleted lawyer. And

0:35:35 Thomas: Okay, I'm so terribly sorry if I'm not understanding, though, but that's, is he getting disbarred or is he just suspended for six months? Months?

0:35:42 Andrew: That, yeah, he can't be a lawyer for six months. It's not he can't be a lawyer forever.

0:35:44 Thomas: Oh, oh, my all right. I mean, what the hell, I mean, we're talking, it's like we're talking about a doctor who's killed 50 people in the operating room and then you let off the show with like, "Ah, he's not gonna be a doctor anymore for six months." Like, what, okay, is that the best we can do? When do you get to not be a lawyer anymore?

0:35:46 Andrew: Yeah,

0:36:02 Thomas: Some one of you lawyers answer me.

0:36:01 Liz: It might be that I have to steal from your client, basically. I mean, honestly, right, that's the real answer, right. Isn't that the real answered unless you steal escrow funds or, like, murder your client, you're just gonna get suspended. Wow.

0:36:10 Andrew: It it it. That was the answer I gave to Thomas when we started off the show. But I'm I'm that, the you, various proceedings against Giuliani and Sidney Powell and the like have kind of expanded that out to like, no, if you are a serial vexatious practitioner, petitioner, right, you are the kind of person who is using your law degree to undermine the legal system, uh, gonna weed you out. And, and I guess I do want to push back on that a little bit, like, God help me, I'm not here to defend Norm Pattis, uh, I think is, um, a great grifter and, you know, a fourth-rate attorney, um, he's in a slightly different category than, like, you, Powell, who for 12 minutes was appointed special counsel to oversee making the votes go the other way, right?

0:37:04 Andrew: Draw that distinction, right, want it, just, I want, I almost said disembowel, um, but maybe, maybe that too, but, like, I wanna disbar Sydney Powell. Right.

0:37:12 Liz: You are petty.

0:37:12 Thomas: Yeah.

0:37:12 Andrew: Now, yeah, uh, hey, I will be team petty bitch any day of the the year, so, uh, you and I can be on the island together, Liz, yeah.

0:37:14 Thomas: I have to talk to the censors and see if that's allowed. I know chicken is, but it's petty bitch, I don't know. Well, we'll ask the council, yeah.

0:37:21 Liz: All right. Oh,

0:37:25 Andrew: Liz said it first. Otherwise otherwise I would not have, uh, joined in on a gendered insult, but I figure, uh, I figure it's okay there.

0:37:33 Thomas: I might bleep it when you or I say it, but I think Liz can say it.

0:37:36 Andrew: You go Oh, wasn't that wasn't there a bit on, like, the Daily Show. Like, see, I can say that.

0:37:37 Liz: My god. But

0:37:36 Thomas: Yeah, it's what, no, it's one of Norm's bits, it's actually and a stand-up set. All right, well, yeah,

0:37:43 Andrew: Oh, god.

0:37:46 Liz: He doesn't believe it, he doesn't believe it.

0:37:48 Thomas: Well, I guess we've determined, I, like, genuinely, I'm not trying to be an asshole, I thought he was getting disbarred and then he's just not, and slap on the the wrist, but, uh, okay. I just, anyone out there who's part of the bar or whatever, like, could you maybe think about reforming some of this? Like, maybe make it a little harder, easier or harder, I guess, to be a lawyer and harder to be able to, you know, to, to do it. Be a terrible ripoff lawyer. That's, that's, uh. Doing horrible things. That all. That is all. All uh but anyway, thank you Liz as always for coming on, giving us the, the breakdown. Might I say grape job?

0:38:11 Liz: Bye.

0:38:11 Andrew: Here

0:38:18 Liz: Bitches, bye.

0:38:19 Andrew: Bye.

0:38:20 Clip: Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar will eat you.

0:38:26 Thomas: Now it's time for, or, Thomas and ChatGPT 3, be somebody's too, I'm sure, came up with a better thingy for that, uh, let's find out, I'm very curious, I, I feel like my money's on the chatbot on this one, but we'll see, let's, can't, can AI be a better lawyer than, you know, random podcast host, low bar, yeah.

0:38:46 Andrew: Right, Thomas, this was, City College is funded by the county government of State X. City College issues an email directive that all employees must disclose all social club memberships at the start of every school year. The purpose of the directive is unclear. Most employees make the disclosure for fear of losing their jobs, but a college accountant challenges the directive as unconstitutional. Is that person correct? Uh, you eliminated, uh, right off the bat, A and B, uh, was the college accountant is probably wrong, such memberships exist, uh, I I, I'm with you that I don't know what that means, so, yep.

0:39:18 Thomas: Yeah. It's, you know, it's not impossible that that could have been an answer, and with the, with the, you know, with a barbing as tricky as it is, but not today, okay, but

0:39:31 Andrew: Yep B, the directive is probably wrong, social club memberships are a private right, um, that's a good elimination because in, in general, right, membership in groups is protected as an extension of the right to freedom of association in the First Amendment, um,

0:39:50 Thomas: Point to me in the Constitution, Andrew, where it specifically says you have the right to be in a group, because if it doesn't say those words, then it doesn't, you can't, it doesn' t matter, you can't have it.

0:39:59 Andrew: Well I you know, you associate with the, but yes, right, um, no, the directive is probably constitutional so long as there is a connection to job performance, that was your guess, the chatbot went with D, yes, the directive is probably unconstitutional if there is proven state action and it is wrongful, um, want to tell you, despite, uh, the fact that the chatbot is reciting back actual elements of a legal test, uh, got it right, and the chatbot has it wrong, so the directive, probably constitutional.

0:40:30 Thomas: Take that internet robots take, that robots, that's one for look, in the future when There's the robot wars in the year 20 whatever, in the beginning of Terminator, they're going to be like, you know what, the beginning of the war was, it was right here, when Thomas beat A at the bar exam and he gloated too much, it's gonna be the reason we're getting, just our asses, just lasered, just laser beamed, sorry about that, but it's worth it for me, oh good.

0:40:35 Andrew: Robots are not taking our jobs anytime soon, or at least by this question. Hmm.

0:40:55 Andrew: Yeah. Well, and I both now are dog owners and dogs can sniff out Terminators. So so we'll be good. Your cats are not going to help us at all in the coming apocalypse. Apocalypse.

0:41:03 Thomas: Okay, no, they're not well, I mean, they do pee a lot, they could pee on them, and I don't think that's good for electronics, we'll see.

0:41:14 Andrew: Very true. Yeah, um, look, association is not a purely private right. It does implicate the First Amendment. The First Amendment's freedom of association cases, uh, it clear that anything that, you know, sort of incidentally burdens your right to freedom of association is probably, uh, to pass muster, uh, under some extension of, you know, of the time, place, and manner doctrine, or otherwise, as you are weighing out the burden of the intrusion against the asserted right that is being asserted here. So even though the purpose of the directive is unclear, so long as the college is able to articulate a compelling state reason for meeting to know the disclosure of social club up memberships and, you know, a, a, uh, a compelling state interest could be, um, of interests among staff members, right, know, if you find out, yeah Look, all of our professors in the econ department are, a are, you know, members of the Federalist Society. Okay, well, like, maybe we should get a couple communists on there, right? Like, um, you know, maybe we should have some, some diversity of, uh, teaching perspective.

And, and that really is like, we, we've talked about this before, with the, you know, in culture, this, this side of the right wing has really died down over the past five years, as they've gone from like pretending to, you know, want alternative viewpoints to like just, oh, yeah, no, we're just full -on Nazis, um, you know, remember way back in the halcyon days of, of like 2016, where the debate was like, look, we just want to show up and, you know, have academic freedom. That's really what academic freedom is about, right?

0:42:12 Thomas: Interesting.

0:42:59 Andrew: Like freedom, academic freedom is the idea that, like, you want your professors to represent a diverse set of viewpoints as you are exposing young college kids to the idea that the world is maybe less black and white than they they were led to believe before coming to college.

0:43:15 Thomas: That's absurd. And we all know that freedom at that level actually means the freedom to come dox a trans kid or something as a conservative. That's really what they meant the whole time and

0:43:17 Andrew: Yeah. Or. Yeah, or, or, you, that that needs to extend to cases like the Institute's Michael Behe, you who know, he's got tenure. He hasn't been fired for being a crackpot, but like everywhere he goes, he has to wear like the sandwich board from Die Harder. That's like, you know, that says my college hates me and thinks that the stuff I do isn't science, because the stuff he does isn't science. Right. Like that, you can have a diversity of viewpoints. And I would feel I deliberately kind of framed, you know, the economics as, you all, you supply siders. Let's get a few communists. But like I would seriously do it the other way around. Right? Like if all of the your econ professors are communists, like, you know, maybe you should bring in somebody who's a, like, you know, die hard, like, you know, Austrian School of Economics, like, yeah, you should, right law and econ from the most conservative professor at the Harvard Law School when I was there. Like that, that's, that's what you do oh wait a way to wait on it up

0:44:23 Thomas: You took ethics from the most unethical, uh, conservative. Yeah. Uh, but anyway back to the question and uh my genius Um, I, I actually sussed this one out. I think, I wasn't sure, I was a little worried, and especially when chat gpt went the other way, because I just feel like, they, Gbt, has access to all the language of everything. I felt like this would be a pretty easy one, but I held out hope because the, the bar, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, I, I think the bar likes to do this because I think in real life, likely this case wouldn't work, but because they get to stipulate in the answer, well, imagine there's a compelling reason, essentially, then that's why I was like, okay, well I mean that would tick the box, the hypothetical, it would pretty much meet the test. And I feel like they do that to try to trick you because for most part, wouldn't this hold muster, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can do this kind questioning on social clubs.

0:44:28 Andrew: Yeah yes yeah no I, I, your analysis was really well done, and it, one of the things that, you know, we've been emphasizing from the very beginning, which is, you know, don't argue with the fact pattern, right, and yep

0:45:29 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, right. When they give you a hypothetical, you can take that on. All right. Well, big winner. You know who this week's big loser is? ChatGPT. Screw that guy. They suck. They're going to totally wipe the floor with me for the rest of the time. But I think this is a cool feature. People said they want to keep it. So we'll maybe keep it on one hand. And I felt like, oh, maybe I should just have chat GPT give the answer and then like give the reasoning on the next day. But now I think about it. I don't know. Cause like when we have Andrew Seidel on here, we get to hear his answer and reasoning and he's not always right. You know, he's been probably most of the time. Right. But like, I don't know. So we'll see. I guess we'll think on it, but I think it's a cool feature either way though. Who is this week's actual big winner in addition to me in the human race of the robots on this week's T3B?

0:45:38 Andrew: Well Yeah. So, well, I think in honor of the chat bot having gotten it wrong, I will tell you, a lot of folks who played along went along with the chatbot. And maybe this will bring them around to humanity. So I'm going to award the win to Ian Supports Choice, which, you know, we support choice. So great, great name. Cute cat pic in the in his profile, profile, and uh, Ian Supports Choice says, I'm pretty sure Thomas would ace the bar if he was also allowed to search the internet for the answer like Chat AI.

0:46:47 Thomas: Thank you.

0:46:48 Andrew: Uh, a very nice, but b, like, just remember, being able to search the whole internet does not necessarily help, yeah can search the whole internet so

0:46:53 Thomas: Yeah, everybody. Who believe the moon landing was faked are able to search the whole internet. Yeah, it doesn't prove anything. Anything. Oh,

0:47:01 Andrew: Uh everyone let's give uh Ian Supports Choice a follow, they are at IAN485, I-A-N-4-8-5, and uh, congratulations, didn't, didn't quite play by the rules, but, uh, nevertheless I am happy to anoint you this week's winner. I definitely can do that. Now you

0:47:19 Thomas: And you keep a tally, right? Can you tally that, uh, GPT is zero for one, we can keep the percentage going my time, I close to 55 again, or I, still, I still suck. What ah man, I want to get up, up there eventually. All right cool congrats, uh, Ian, thanks for playing everybody

0:47:31 Andrew: 50 53, yeah, I know I do too, and

0:47:38 Clip: Thank you for being a friend, oh yeah, travel down the road with me, say we started from the bottom now we're here girl,

0:47:48 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats on patreon.com/law, enjoying all the goodies, the ad-free episodes, the extra stuff, the Law'd Awful Movies, is all kinds of things, and we are on, I know it's a little weird because of the release change, but we're only just now on our first quartile for this month, so why don't you start us off, Andrew

0:48:04 Andrew: A big thank you to the patent pending, Sternly Worded Crunchwrap Auto Generator Narrator, the 13 Angry Non-binary jurors, Stephen Kimry, Eric Stratton, Adnan Syed is obviously innocent oh, well, welcome aboard

0:48:13 Thomas: Well yeah the one arm man did it, yeah, oh

0:48:20 Andrew: Yeah Megan Frio, the pirated NFT of Roger Stone's presidential pardon, the one guy who did that thing, oh, all right, well, that's it then, we're done, uh, Tray Cary Table Mafia, Andrew Philpott, the 666th, six sheeps, six sheep, nice job, Hades, Erica Davis, Emma the Aussie Barrister, Canada is objectively better because when you measure in metric, everything looks bigger, I have to share my favorite Canadian anecdote there, the Orioles, Baltimore Orioles baseball in the mid-80s had a pitcher named Mike Boddicker who was the ace of the staff, but threw at a level that would not make competitive high school teams today.

0:49:10 Andrew: Right. He threw in the mid 80s and he beat Toronto and then was quoted in a postgame interview. And Miller, legendary broadcaster, was like, so, Mike, Radar Gun show that you hit 90 today. Boddicker quipped, Yeah, with the exchange rate, it's only 83. And I absolutely have remembered that since childhood. Loved it. Really great. Anyway, backdropbooks.com, at backdropbooks identified 133 backdrop books for Thomas. You're next, Andrew. Show us the goods. Well, I will be showing you something in our next live Q&A, but may not be my backdrop books.

0:49:52 Andrew: Patricia, Patricia Ansley Rawls's OG position, love that sex and gender are different things, yes, furthermore, masculinity and femininity exist on another independent spectrum, um, I don't know that I would say masculinity and femininity are on the spectrum femininity Yeah, but anyway, thank you, I don't think we disagree much, Kayleen Kunzel, Syracuse Law 2L, well, uh, ups to Syracuse Law, Patty B, texaschainsawlawyer.com, loves to sue cops and landlords, do you think that's really texaschainsawlawyer.com, that'll, uh, be that'd be great if that's, uh, they're advertising with us that way, um, you know, you could, us, you run real ads, uh, Tavi Rider says, T3BE fame and fortune are not guaranteed, so when I win, you'll just shower me

0:49:50 Thomas: Wow big teaser there, yeah femininity yeah sure, yeah okay

0:50:39 Andrew: All righty then, I, I did.

0:50:41 Thomas: Oa after dark, I guess, nope

0:50:45 Andrew: Reading your name on my podcast means we're in a parasocial relationship and I want to take it to the next level. Your friendly neighborhood union lawyer and Liza Green Thomas, take it away.

0:50:58 Thomas: You to the administrator general of greater Scandinavia, Brit Robert Reichel, ignominiously anonymous, Praise Beetle, Am Chop, Trojan Horse News, a funny meme to share with Uncle Frank with real news snuck in the comments on Facebook, as Trojan Horse News, or how many people at the Capitol on January 6th were also at Woodstock 99, oh, I wish I were an Oscar Minor Meyer Wiener, that is what I truly like to be, because if I were in Oscar, Oscar Meyer Weiner, everyone would, and it's cut off, LC, I continue to be a patron for the shout out to Kelly, hi Kelly, uh Something that looks like, uh, something looks like kling on Not sure.

Len Bogan, not a health ranger. Woodland underscore shadows check out my IG if interested in custom wire art. Oh, cool, it's woodland underscore shadows Molly Jane Sire: Eli's school has a No Nut November, but mine has D's D's Nuts December. That's a Dear Old Dads deep cut. Hunter Kinsey: hello, it is it me you're looking for, the Lionel Richie factor. You gotta fight for your, your right to ex parte. Angry Muller: podcast sponsored by the Bob Lomi. Wait, CDC says take advice from the... CC says take legal advice from a podcast. Jeremy Ashinghurst: I'm fast at sex. Michael Gross Niklaus: Tucson live show, come for the tacos, stay for the Titan Missile Museum. Will do, too.

0:51:29 Andrew: Hi, Kelly.

0:52:19 Thomas: All right. Thank you, top patrons. That's our show. Thanks so much for listening. We will see you tomorrow. Back to our Fast Response Friday, Rapid Response Friday episode. Looking forward to it.

0:52:32 Andrew: Then.

0:52:32 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.

0:53:06 Clip: www.openargs.com. Be sure to join the Facebook group at facebook.com/groups/Yodel Mountain and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media LLC, all rights reserved. It is produced with the assistance of transcriptionist Heather Leverage, production assistant Ashley Smith, and additional contributions from Morgan Stringer and Debra Smith. Special thanks to Teresa Gomez, who runs our live shows and heads up the OA Wiki, follow at OA Wiki on Twitter. Additional thanks to the moderators of the Opening Arguments Facebook community, Emily Waters, Alicia Cook, Eric Brewer, Natalie Newell, Brian Ziegenhagen, and Teresa. And finally, thanks to Thomas Smith, who edits the show and created the fabulous theme music, which was used with permission.