OA678: Dersh's Sanctions Defense Somehow Keeps Getting Worse

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

0:01:23 Andrew: I am back to being fantastic now, so, how about yourself?

0:01:28 Thomas: No, they, you know, I'll tell you, great baby, fantastic baby. I, I forget that I, since I do Dear Old Dads, I forget where I've updated anybody on anything, but uh, uh, Old Dads is where you can, where you hear more about parenting and all that stuff, fun stuff, but the baby is great. We got a great baby, um, know that's a roll of the dice, that's uh, that's it, you never know, no.

0:01:32 Andrew: Oh,

0:01:48 Thomas: I mean, like, like in terms of colic, whatever.

0:01:47 Andrew: Sometimes they're assholes.

0:01:51 Thomas: Yeah, they're total dicks. No, in terms of how the baby sleeps or how the baby eats or how the baby digests or how, you know, there's all these variables that you cannot control. And you can get a baby that's overwhelming and impossible and through no fault of your own, obviously. Or you get lucky, like I think we have so far, fingers crossed, and you get a nice, a good baby. Tough a little bit, you know, obviously it's a newborn, but good.

0:02:16 Andrew: Can change very quickly. So, like, My sister, and I used to live next door to my sister, uh, her firstborn child is just a little bit younger than Alex, right, and so Alex was great as a baby, no colic, no nothing, and baby Sean was like, Carla had to like drive around the neighborhood at three in the morning and like run the vacuum cleaner, it was just, he couldn't sleep at all, and then at about age two they just shifted, and like Sean has just been an no fuss child for the last 16 years of his life.

0:02:18 Thomas: True. Yeah. Nice.

0:02:52 Andrew: And uh, Alex has screaming night terrors and insomnia. So, uh, oh yeah, no, it's amazing. So,

0:02:55 Thomas: Oh, no. Or you could be like baby Andrew and you're a colloquy, I think.

0:03:02 Andrew: I was indeed.

0:03:05 Thomas: Going to the doctor. Yeah, he won't stop. I don't know.

0:03:09 Andrew: Sidebar, uh, your, your honor, uh, let's.

0:03:10 Thomas: Yeah. All right. Well, what's on the agenda? Oh, I do want to put in right here just a little reminder. I'm seeking help in editing. As I said last episode, if you stuck around to the end, And if you are somebody who might be interested in a paid position editing, doing a first pass for us, me, email thomasatseriespod.com, include, I don't know, some experience, some maybe a sample or why you'd like the job. And also, because due to convenience and the fact that I just don't, I'm so overwhelmed, I don't have time for a big onboarding or anything. I need somebody who already works with Ableton Live and is willing to do that because I don't want to have destructive editing. I want to still be able to look into the files and look at the cuts and all that. So thank you for considering. Send me an email. Thomas at SeriesPod. Looking forward to hearing from you. And with that, Andrew, what's going on? What's new?

0:03:59 Andrew: Start off with, uh, our friend Captain Underpants. It's Alan Dershowitz, my mentor. We updated you about a week ago on the inexplicable argument that Dersh was making in connection with the Carrie Lake lawsuit, for which he has been properly sanctioned by the judge in that case. And he filed a show cause order that says, can't sanction me, I'm Alan Dershowitz, I've had three strokes.

0:04:32 Thomas: I can't not think of the end of the first Batman where puts on the glasses and goes, you wouldn't hit a man with glasses, would you? It's like, I feel like Dersh did that. Yeah, like, ah, you wouldn't sanction a man with old, would you?

0:04:45 Andrew: It's, it's crazy. Well, we now have Dershowitz's reply brief that ostensibly responds to the state submission. Uh, alert, it does not. Uh, we have some additional information about the bar complaint still pending in Arizona against Alan Dershowitz's lawyer who filed this piece, piece of crap, Jack Willenchick. And so I have linked, I put up, it's in the show notes, it's available on our website, the complaint and the response, which I think is really, really interesting from the lawyers that Jack Willenchick hired in connection with that investigation. So September 9th, that was when the response was filed.

0:05:31 Andrew: That investigation is still open by the Independent Bar Council of the Office of Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. And remember, the complaint was that Willenchick, as part of the discussion of how to overthrow our constitutional democracy, very candidly said in an email like, oh, I get it. You want us to file fake electors. That's a smart idea. And that person should not be practicing law.

0:05:57 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, crimes. Okay, let's do those.

0:06:03 Andrew: It It responds to some of the specific allegations that you should be disbarred under multiple violations of the Arizona model rules of professional conduct that I agree. But I want to read the narrative portion, because this is just bonkers to me. Right, so first, Donald Wilson of Bronig, Oberg, Woods and Wilson is who Jack Willenchick hired. He is a respected, top shelf ethics lawyer, right, like not ordinarily a member of crazy town, and I don't know what he's doing here, submission to the Bar Council, to the Office of Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, is, I'm going to read it to you. I'm not even going to give you any characters, you tell me

0:06:03 Thomas: Hmm, okay. All

0:06:48 Andrew: If you hired a lawyer to prepare this for you, what you make of.

0:06:49 Thomas: Right. You do that, I just I don't think I'm the only one. There's like 18 layers of lawyering here. There'S like criminals lawyring other criminals who are then for their secondary trial are then hiring different criminals to lawyer them. Can you Peel back the onion of the of The of the stack of lawyers of who's learning who here?

0:07:03 Andrew: You are correct. Yeah. No, that is that is absolutely correct. I mean, you need like a playbill here to, you know, figure out the dramatis personae because it all overlaps. So there is a pending sanctions order in Arizona in federal court in connection with Carrie Lake's nonsense lawsuit claiming that, you know, Arizona needs to switch to the paper ballots they've been using for 200 years. Right. And that sanctions order requires Alan Dershowitz jointly and severally to pay the legal bills incurred by the state of Arizona and by Katie Hobbs in responding to that Cracker Jack complaint. OK. In connection with that, Alan Dershowitz has hired a QAnon level lunatic moron named Jack Willenchick, who is well

0:07:13 Thomas: Yeah. So

0:08:01 Andrew: Known in Arizona and who is himself under disciplinary investigation by the Office of Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.

0:08:07 Thomas: Is That like A Hair Of the dog

0:08:10 Andrew: I love it it

0:08:10 Thomas: Situation. The Only person who could get into the mind of a bar complaint. Complaint is somebody who is also being sanctioned, I don't know, that is very Weird. Wow.

0:08:22 Andrew: It could be this is not a person Alan Dershowitz should ever hire on his worst day right this is somebody Alan Dershowitz should instantly recognize as a buffoon who is not qualified to practice law and it is beyond mind-boggling that Alan Dershowitz who, again, remember, in our last episode, we went through this, goes through the rigmarole of like, I'm a liberal Democrat. I don't. He has signed on with someone who has made his entire recent legal career out of being pro insurrectionist, MAGA hat wearing idiot. OK. And when I say MAGA wearing idiot, I mean idiot in the sense of put in writing the the quiet part that they were supposed to keep quiet.

0:08:29 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:09:13 Andrew: Right. So was on the email chain with Ken Chesebro. And our buddy John Eastman and said, hey, oh, I get it now. Literally, the email says, oh. I get I get you want us to submit fake electors. Great idea.

0:09:29 Thomas: Per our Our verbal meeting, just to get this all written down. Crimes?

0:09:29 Andrew: Right. Yeah. Yeah, Yeah. I'm on board. Word. So, uh, as you might imagine, uh, various concerned citizens filed a bar complaint. Uh, I'm not going to read you the complaint because the complaint's like, um, this guy said out loud he wanted to subvert democracy, that kind of a person should not be allowed to practice law, and I agree. So this is the response, so that guy, now, now we're inception level three, that guy hired the kind of lawyer you might have expected Alan Dershowitz to hire. He hired a perfectly reasonable, not just perfectly reasonable. Yeah. He Hired a guy named Donald Wilson from a firm, Bronig, Oberg, Woods, and Wilson, who was a top shelf ethics lawyer, very respected, perfectly reasonable guy who, however, came up with this document. And so now we go back to the beginning. If you had paid a lawyer to write this for you, you're Jack Willenchick, you would like not to be disbarred for, you know, disbarable offenses.

0:09:35 Thomas: Yeah, okay.

0:10:09 Thomas: Oh, he had a real lawyer. Oh.

0:10:36 Thomas: Yeah,

0:10:36 Andrew: Um, How happy are you with this defense? And we're going to talk about the specifics, uh, but it begins with a narrative paragraph, right? So it says, uh, "Dear Mr. McCarville," that's the investigative officer, "we understand you're investigating an attorney client privileged email," that mr client which not true, uh, fraud exception, that's not attorney client privilege, "that Mr. wellin chick sent to his clients in which, which he gave his opinion that it was not criminal or otherwise illegal for the 2020 Trump presidential electors to send in their votes to Congress for former President Trump. In the email, Mr. Willenschick pointed out that the votes were not formally certified by the Governor, and he offhandedly referred to them as fake or alternate votes." Course, the votes in question were openly uncertified by the Governor, and they were not intended to deceive anyone as to that or any other fact.

0:10:36 Thomas: Yeah.

0:11:23 Andrew: In fact, yeah, that's why you went to the trouble of affixing that, like, fake seal and using the same language and sending them to the National Archives. There was definitely no, you to deceive anyone. You know.

0:11:35 Thomas: So they're just trying to rewrite the story of what happened, but in a matter -of -fact way of like, hey, regarding the thing where we did nothing wrong, just some updates on that.

0:11:45 Andrew: I mean, here's how not wrong it was. Right. We couldn't. The implicit argument there is, well, look, everyone knows it wasn't signed by the governor. So you couldn't possibly have been trying to commit fraud. So when you called these fake, that was, quote, offhandedly referring to them. I would be pleased if that was my lawyer's best argument.

0:11:46 Thomas: Yeah.

0:12:04 Thomas: Is offhandedly a secret get -out -of jail -free word, I guess? I don't.

0:12:07 Andrew: Yeah, I mean, we use it for Andrew was wrong, right? Like it's I'm sorry I was riffing and I didn't really know that much at the time. But

0:12:11 Thomas: Yeah. Look, when I was threatening offhandedly threatening to kidnap this man's children if he didn't pay me money. It was it was offhandedly, though.

0:12:22 Andrew: Goes on. At the time that the Trump electors sent in their votes to Congress, Mr. Willenchick had filed a pending petition for certiorari and motion to expedite with the United States Supreme Court on the Ward versus Jackson election contest. That's true. That was also a frivolous lawsuit that the Supreme Court summarily declined to grant cert.

0:12:41 Thomas: Oh, but is that an effort to do the thing you say where it's like a good faith? Faith argument for why the law should be different. Is that what they're trying to do there, you think?

0:12:42 Andrew: Yeah. That's what I think they're trying to do. But this is clearly not a good faith effort. Right? This is a that's why those that's why that adjective is in there. It's not just any effort to change the law. It all and all they say is if the petition were granted, then it could have resulted in a final order that the Trump electors votes be counted. It could have if all the laws were not the way they are.

0:12:52 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:13:08 Thomas: Look, Andrew, I had a petition in front of the SCOTUS to make murder legal, and I was operating under the idea that that was going going to happen. So we're fine, right? It's

0:13:10 Andrew: And yeah, Have this, which is just bonkers. The concern was that if the Trump electors did not send their votes to Congress in the meantime, as required by the Electoral Count Act, then it would moot out the petition for certiorari, because Congress could not count the votes, even if SCOTUS ordered a reversal. Sending in the votes was therefore necessary to preserve Congress's ability to count the Trump votes in the event of a reversal by the Supreme Court. That's batshit crazy. You do not have to bleep me for that. That is beyond bonkers, because it is, it is saying, yeah, look, we know these are not legal votes, but you had to send in the not legal votes, because if the cert petition with no chance of success had worked, then there wouldn't have been remedies if you hadn't had the illegal votes that were in that, they could have no That's Not, not how any of this works.

0:14:05 Thomas: I've already fallen over. I don't understand what any of that was.

0:14:07 Andrew: Right. You should, because that's, not because one of the reasons that the cert petition was frivolous is that there was no relief to be had, right? This was after the safe harbor deadline, after the electoral, the electors had been certified by the states, right, under the Electoral Count Act, under that Statute, and so one of the reasons that the Supreme Court was like, well, this is frivolous and stupid and stop it, was there's no relief that could be had. And so this letter says, ah, but if you filed illegal fake votes that were not signed by the governor, then maybe you could have some relief.

0:14:18 Thomas: Hmm. Right. Yeah.

0:14:46 Andrew: That's literally what that paragraph says. That'S

0:14:47 Thomas: Huh. But, but how, why would that even get you relief if you did? Even taking it on their terms? Oh, okay. So, so I write to be be confused by that.

0:14:52 Andrew: I don't know. There's no argument. Right. You are absolutely right to smack your head against against the wall on that. Have this. I guess you could go all the way downstream because this mirrors the Alan Dershowitz. Willenchick was not, contrary to certain media reports, prominently involved in organizing the electors or even in developing the notion of having them send in their votes. His client asked for his opinion as to whether sending in their votes was criminal or illegal in any way.

0:15:20 Thomas: He was of accomplice.

0:15:24 Andrew: Yeah, that's exactly right. And he correctly applied that it absolutely is not that, by the way, that that's not correct and and and the use of the word absolutely, like, it is when you file a document that purports to be an official document and you know that it isn't, that's a crime, that's falsifying documents. Okay, so it is not like whether sending in the votes is some kind of, you know, freedom of speech. Like, it's just, but, course, we we have the argument, moreover, sending in the votes was also First Amendment protected activity. So just, just so we're clear on that, right? We it is protected activity to mimic an official document. Yeah.

0:16:00 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, if I send you like a tax document, fake tax document. It's my fundamental freedom of speech right to, I don't know, send you a fake notice from the IRS saying you owe me a bunch of money, right? That's fine.

0:16:16 Andrew: Yeah. Don't, don't take legal advice from a podcast. It This says, I'm going to read it to you directly. In fact, if Mr. Willenchick wanted to send his quote vote to Congress right now that Joe, Joe Biden be impeached and replaced with Donald Trump, that would be perfectly legal and constitute First Amendment protected activity as well. Yeah, that wouldn't be perfectly illegal. It's totally fine to tell Congress, impeach Joe Biden, replace him with Donald Trump, even though you don't have the power to do that. You can say that all day long. What you couldn't do is, I don't know, send that in and say, oh, this has been signed by the governor of Arizona invoking his power under the Arizona Replace the President Act of 2023. Right. Donald Wilson knows that, and that that's what's the most heartbreaking to me in in all of

0:16:21 Thomas: It's speech.

0:17:04 Thomas: Yeah. Is being a real shitty lawyer infectious, I guess? Maybe just by being in contact with these loons rubbed off.

0:17:08 Andrew: That. I, I guess it could be. So the complaint against Willenchick, I has numerous meritorious aspects. And response as we get to the specifics. So Rule 3.1 says a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding or assert or controvert an issue therein unless there is a good faith basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which may include a good-faith and non-frivolous argument for an extension modification or reversal of existing law. That's the provision you cited earlier. Right. Response on three one is by giving his opinion, Mr. Willenchick did not bring or defend a proceeding. And moreover, his opinion that the elector's conduct was not illegal or criminal is clearly non frivolous and correct. Correct, um, it turns out, like, not a great argument, the argument that there is no proceeding. Uh, um, one, you can make, the word "proceeding," unlike most of these, is not defined in the model rules. Uh, as you read the comments, right, the comment to, and again, call back to our D&D episode, this is super helpful, one of the things that the model rules does is has

0:17:40 Thomas: Yep. Yeah, you're

0:18:19 Andrew: Little comments explaining the legalese underneath

0:18:19 Thomas: Not talking about the YouTube comments.

0:18:20 Andrew: No.

0:18:21 Thomas: You're talking about like the people who wrote the law or whatever commenting on what it means. Yeah right.

0:18:22 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Are Like, Yeah, hey, here's how you understand this. So it says, uh, the advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client's cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed. Okay, uh, and then it says, part two, the filing of an action or defense or similar, taken a similar action taken for a client, right, is not frivolous merely because the facts have not been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their client's cases and the applicable law and determined that they can make good faith and non-frivolous argument in support of their client's positions.

0:19:12 Andrew: So this response here that says you didn't bring a proceeding. So therefore, technically, like there's no rule that says, you know, a dog can't play left field. Right. Right. Not likely, in my view, to go very far because

0:19:25 Thomas: So that that Sounds like that I'm not touching you, I'm actually touching you, know, like your hands all over the face kind of thing

0:19:29 Andrew: Really it really does. Because the rules are very clear that this is meant to protect the practice of law. And it is meant to say lawyers have to do the background research, inform themselves about the facts so that they can make good faith and non frivolous arguments in support of their clients positions. So was he bringing a lawsuit? No, but he was encouraging people to interfere with an actual lawful process, which is the transmission of a slate of electors from the House of from the state legislature of Arizona to the National Archives. And they said their own script. Right. That's that is mimicking interfering with an existing procedure. And I think it is very, very clear that that is at least the equivalent of, quote, a similar action taken for a client to if they had filed a lawsuit. So the fact that you didn't file a lawsuit is not going to get at get you out of jail free on this one.

0:20:25 Thomas: Yeah. And Almost sounded like you were putting emphasis in there, but I think it's just the way it was written. It said good faith, good faith, you know, not frivolous. Good fit like 18 times, and the thing I think they They were Very clear that you can't just get out on a technicality. It has to actually be good faith.

0:20:42 Andrew: Yeah, it really does. That is exactly right. Right. Up is rule three point three, a three, which says a lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. More after that. Then it says, and I guess you need to know this in order to understand their technical defense. That's garbage here. See if you can see if you could predict this in advance.

0:21:12 Andrew: If a lawyer, the lawyer's client or witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

0:21:24 Thomas: Are they going to say, well, we thought the election was stolen and we found out later. No.

0:21:27 Andrew: No, no. What it says, it's worse. It says this rule cannot possibly be implicated. There is no tribunal, there is no false statement of law. In fact, no evidence is offered. There is No Adjudicative Proceeding.

0:21:32 Thomas: Oh, okay. Oh. I didn't, I just ignored the tribunal part. What did that mean?

0:21:42 Andrew: Yeah, Because usually when you're offering false evidence, you are not submitting it to the National Archives. Archives, you are putting a false testimony on the stand, right, yeah, Right, that's and so, uh, the argument's really bad in two ways. So first, it's bad grammatically, right, because you can just read A3 without the second half, right? You can say a lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. How do we know that the lawyer knew this to be falsely? He used the word false in his email, all right? And then the question is, is that evidence? And the answer is, yeah, you submitted it as an official document to the National Archives.

0:21:53 Thomas: Or to Congress or something?

0:22:20 Andrew: So grammatically, because that's that's where you that's where the electors, they send their copy.

0:22:20 Thomas: Wait, what is this national archive thing? Oh, I thought they submitted them to Congress. That was why I said that. So they don't.

0:22:28 Andrew: Yeah, they did. It also you send a copy for record keeping to the National Archives, that's

0:22:33 Thomas: Right. But either way, both of those things could colloquially be understood to be like, yeah, okay, that's the tribunal in this case

0:22:42 Andrew: Is defined in In Section 1 .0, as a court, an arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding, or a legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity.

0:22:51 Thomas: Oh, it's even worse. Okay. So not even colloquial, like literally that is what I was defining.

0:22:58 Andrew: Yeah, literally defined word for word. A Legislative body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument, will render a legal judgment directly affecting a party's interest in a particular matter. That could not more accurately describe the vice president standing up. OK, guys, go out, give us the evidence that I'm going to count up and then I'm doing to gavel in the person with the most electoral votes. Right. Like that is absolutely an adjudicative capacity, it is perhaps the most important adjuditative capacity that the joint session of Congress ever operates in, right, they're, they're gaveling in the new president. So, yeah, uh, is no tribunal does not strike me as a fantastic argument here it

0:23:01 Thomas: Okay, yeah.

0:23:40 Thomas: That is a terrible argument. Yeah, they're trying to do like a strict textualist, like, Wow. All right.

0:23:42 Andrew: Really really is I could go through more of this, but I think you got the the taste of this, uh, find it it highly likely that Alan Dershowitz's lawyer himself is going to be sanctioned, possibly disbarred, and if that happened while he was defending Alan Dershowitz for sanctions, that would be just uh, and um, brings us to the most recent piece of crap that uh, Jack Willenchick filed on behalf of Alan Dershowitz in response to Dersh's claims for sanctions, which, which, spoiler alert, it doesn't get better. Yeah.

0:24:03 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:24:20 Thomas: So why is he filing a thing? I thought it was the state's turn or whatever, the whoever's turn.

0:24:25 Andrew: So Dershowitz filed a show cause order that said you can't sanction me. I'm Alan Dershowitz. I'm old. The state responded to that and said everything you've talked about in this falls under one of two categories. Either one, it's a dispute between you and your other other lawyers defending Carrie Lake. Right. And that's not up to us to figure that one out. Work that out amongst yourselves.

0:24:51 Andrew: Or number two, it'S WAY LATE. Like you filed an opposition to our sanctions motion. And if you had grounds for opposing sanctions four months ago would have been a fantastic time to file those. Not now. So is the reply brief to those two points. Spoiler alert, it does not. Well, it kind of responds to one of them. Begins. And again, I just cannot describe the manifest level of incompetence in is the first We're starting at the first word. This is the first sentence of their reply brief. Again, right, remember, your first paragraph is where you kind of set out your punchy theory of the case. Here is what Alan Dershowitz's counsel, the himself under investigation, Jack Willenchick, has said as the reason why in support of his show cause order for why Alan Dershowitz can't be sanctioned.

0:24:50 Thomas: Right. Oh,

0:25:43 Andrew: Quote, Because Rule 11 awards must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated, and the county fails to allege any conduct by Mr. Dershowitz in the past, present, or future that would be deterred by assessing fees against him, then no amount of fees should be assessed against Mr. Dershowitz in this matter.

0:25:49 Thomas: Hmm.

0:26:04 Thomas: Huh. That doesn't sound right to me. I mean, that sounds like a big problem would be, you just say, ah, I won't do it again. And then you're free. You could do, that's fine. That that counts.

0:26:14 Andrew: That. They explicitly make that argument with it. If he did anything wrong, he's very sorry and he won't do it again. Yeah, which is not the way the law works. But but is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. We are here. The reason that Alan Dershowitz gets a reply brief is because this is his motion. It's an application for a show cause order on which he bears the burden of proof, saying the county fails to allege any conduct is quite possibly the stupidest thing you could say in response of your amendment because there's already a sanctions order. The county doesn't have to allege any conduct. The court has found conduct that should be deterred.

0:26:47 Thomas: Wow. Are they trying to say they haven't alleged the future cut like the like that he's gonna repeat it is that what he's what they're trying to do in

0:27:03 Andrew: What's says, fails to allege any conduct in the past, present or future that would be deterred by assessing fees against him.

0:27:10 Thomas: The path Well, of course it does in the past, that's what we're talking about. What the hell can

0:27:12 Andrew: Yeah. Yes, of course. That's the conduct to be deterrent. So factually, it's wrong. Right. In that the brief is very clear in saying, like, yeah, you don't want people to come in and claim things like we need. I'm filing this complaint to make sure Arizona uses paper ballots only to discover Arizona uses paper ballots, right? That's the gravamen of the sanctions order. This is so stupid, so bad, so misleading that you came in here and you wanted injunctive relief to force the state to do a thing it already does. Get out of here with that.

0:27:46 Thomas: You get sanctions for defending your sanctions so bad we're gonna be an 18 different layer burrito of sanctions that's I like this is so I know it's like, haha, this is terrible, but the fact that you've said we've got an actual lawyer involved somewhere in here and it's this bad, is it's like uncomfortable. I'm I'm confused. Like, how, how

0:27:51 Andrew: Absolutely. Yeah. Oh, I would love that that with guacamole on top yeah you be, it's it's bad. And remember, that actual lawyer is defending the lawyer who wrote this in his bar complaint, so he has nothing to do with this. So this has only ever been seen by crazy people. Okay, that's maybe that's why they didn't realize, uh, it goes on to say the county offers no evidence to support a specific finding that Mr. Dershowitz acted recklessly in bad faith or otherwise violated the statute. No sanctions should be imposed on him because he personally did no wrong. At worst, he may have made an honest mistake about the state of an of-council consultant under Arizona law and practice. That's not how any of this works. There's an order of sanctions against Alan M. Dershowitz. It is not up to the the the state, Katie Hobbs, anybody to to give you more proof of like, there's a judge said you should be sanctioned, you've said, well, tell me why. I really

0:28:15 Thomas: It

0:29:01 Andrew: Should be sectioned because, you know, I'm I'm old and I've had three strokes. And the state was like, yeah, that that that doesn't, that doesn't get you out of this. And this reply brief is just, it's insane. Um, uh, burdens on, you order at length lists the kind of behavior that it wants to deter. It's saying, you know, stuff like, Arizona needs to switch to paper ballots, right? He uses paper ballots. Um, here we go, to your point, um, reply brief lists exactly the kind, kind of behavior that they want to deter, Alan Dershowitz. Like, they give you this own goal, right? So here it is.

0:29:42 Thomas: Should just say in reply, it should say you're doing it now, this is you're, you're still doing it, this is it.

0:29:46 Andrew: That, yeah, that's the thing. So here's what it said. I swear to God, not making this up, bottom of page two to the top of page three. There is no doubt that he, Alan Dershowitz, is an accomplished constitutional jurist. That's true. Who has consulted on many notable cases in such capacity. True. Without necessarily agreeing or endorsing other substantive positions taken by co-counsel, all true. If he is wrong in this basic assumption, then he apologizes for such a mistake and will not repeat it.

But it is an honest mistake, if a mistake at all. He represents that if he was mistaken, he will not repeal his mistake in any future filing. Um, Jack just said, I don't know whether Dersh made a mistake in agreeing to sign on to this lawsuit, uh, but if he did, tell us that he did, and uh, we will make sure that he apologizes and doesn't do it again. That's what a sanctions order is. That's telling you you done screwed up, Alan. Like, imagine, right, the way in which this is drafted provides the proof that the court needs, right? Why do we have to impose sanctions? Because you're still, still not sure you did something wrong. So we're going to impose sanctions that will tell you, yup, you did something wrong, and guess what happens when you do something wrong? You have to pay the other side's legal fees. So pay them, right? Again, remember, this

0:31:09 Andrew: Sanctions order is not going to disbar Alan Dershowitz, not by itself, right. Somebody else hopefully is filing a bar complaint in Massachusetts as we speak. Um, it's just mind boggling here. So, you know, Dersh doesn't know if he made a a mistake, but if you assess sanctions, then he will know, and he won't repeat that in any future file. So this is clearly an own goal situation, uh it, um, are a few more things. There's, is of course, uh, it's my first day defense, right, because they, they all do that. He filed an affidavit, right, a second affidave, so we, we read the first one last week. The second, the second one says the record stands undisputed that Mr. Dershowitz's role was very limited and narrow in scope. He was not involved in the actual issues this court has deemed sanctionable.

He spent approximately three hours total on this case, focusing on the single potential constitutional issue for which he was retained to consult as of counsel. And even if that's true, who the hell cares? Ask Emily Newman. Right. Right. Sign on to pleadings, I don't care if it is your job, or it's your first day. You to abide by minimum standards of conduct.

0:31:09 Thomas: Yeah Oh, that's too bad, yeah. Yeah yeah

0:32:18 Andrew: You can't just stick your name on something and go, well, you know, I'm not the one who's responsible for it. It doesn't matter. Don't associate with people who are likely to write ridiculous pleadings if you don't want to be sanctioned. Or I got a better one for you. You know, when Alan Dershowitz was put on notice about this, he was actually put on the notice. He was sent a document called a rule 11 notice. We've talked about this a lot. That is a 21 day safe harbor period. And he could have spent any amount of time over those 21 days.

0:32:48 Thomas: That's the big one, yeah, yeah.

0:32:51 Andrew: Yeah. Looking it over and being like, oh, shit. I put my name on a document with idiots and morons.

0:32:58 Thomas: Because, because I want to say this too, I didn't catch the part about the strokes in the last episode, I don't know why, I just kind of missed it, I think, and, you course, all the sympathy in the world for people vet strokes, obviously, but I don't think your defense can be, oh, I'm not capable of being a lawyer. You're like, hey, you did things very wrong as a lawyer, it's hard to be like, yeah, because I can't be a lawyer. That doesn't make sense.

0:33:09 Andrew: Of course.

0:33:23 Thomas: What? And furthermore, to the point you just made, okay, if you're going to say, oh, I messed up because of my health issues, whatever, ever, well then why didn't you fix it in the 21 day grace period, that doesn't make any sense, yeah.

0:33:22 Andrew: Yeah, no, it does not, yeah. That that that is absolutely, that also covers that it's my first day excuse, right, because okay, fine, you didn't know your name got attached to a pleading that was crap. If that happened to me, and and and again, I like to think that would never happen to me because I read pleadings before I let somebody sign my name to them. Um, in fact, I had this exact situation come up. I, there a situation where I had to remove a case from state court to federal court. And the removal statute is really, really strict on timing. And I hadn't practiced in federal court in a couple of months.

And so I didn't know that due to a clerical error, I was marked on the inactive list, list. OK. And I called the court and I'm like, hey, I'm marked on the inactive list. And so I can't file anything. And got to file this thing by tomorrow. Right. And the notice of removal is, you know, super easy. It's a it's I could do it in 10 minutes. So, you know, I'd left myself a day and a half. That's more than enough time. I go to log in and it's like, oh, you're inactive, and she's like, yep, we can absolutely fix that for you in three days.

And I'm like, yeah, but but the problem is my client will forfeit their rights in a day and a half. And the court was like, we can actually fix that, four, year, three days. And so what I did was, I called a friend of mine and I said, I'm need, I need some help here. I explained the situation. I need you to sign on as co-counsel and file it right

0:33:41 Thomas: Hmm right

0:35:07 Andrew: So that we meet the removal deadline line in two days, I'll be admitted back to the court, they'll fix the technical error, uh, and you can withdraw and I'll I'll support the petition to withdraw and I will pay for all of this, right? Like it's not, not going to my client, you, client doesn't have to pay because the the uh court screwed something up. And we did that. And the important part is my friend doing me a favor, just basically loaning me his login, said, well, you know, I will follow that tomorrow, right? Because it's like noon and I'm gonna need overnight to read the pleading that you're filing. And I didn't say, like, oh, come on, like, don't drive around with the meter on, this is a favor for me, as your, but it was like, yeah, of course, right, you can't file a thing for me

0:35:41 Thomas: Right. I want to make sure you're not doing any insurrections in this thing that favor I'm doing for you.

0:35:52 Andrew: Right. That's the way a lawyer behaves. So, yeah, if it's your first day, even if you're caught in, because, you know, there was a snafu with the senior partner's login on CMECF, you must use your appropriate diligence. So I would never be in that spot, God willing. But suppose it happens, I don't know, whatever. You have that three-week safe harbor period. That's a serious moment. If I ever got a Rule 11 letter, I would look at it and go, okay, I got to make a choice here.

Am I going to defend my pleading, or am I going to withdraw and say, yep, yeah, you know what, uh, got me, I went too far in knowing that, I withdraw and, uh, and we will move on. And the fact that he didn't do that at the time is is really just, uh, be dispositive of this fact, this whole, like, I was of council, you know, Handmaid's Tale, so that doesn't, so every time it says council, it doesn't say of counsel, I, I've never seen anybody make that argument. Uh, certainly does not alleviate you of your responsibility when you sign your name onto a pleading.

0:35:53 Thomas: Yeah.

0:36:18 Thomas: That Sounds

0:36:58 Andrew: Um really kind of does they

0:36:59 Thomas: Sovereign citizen-esque, like, that's the the fictitious entity of counsel that I, yeah, oh,

0:37:05 Andrew: And Willenchick writes because the original motion for sanctions only sought sanctions against quote counsel and did not expressly include of counsel. And because of his lack of involvement in the case, he, meaning Dershowitz, only became aware that he may have been the subject of a sanction after media reports mentioned him by name in connection with the court sanctions order.

0:37:26 Thomas: So he's so that's why he's saying, maybe in the the grace period he didn't do it, because you know, he's just an of council, not a council.

0:37:28 Andrew: Yeah. So So think that. So what I did was went back to the docket. The way, the first thing you notice on the doocket that you type in the case name and it comes up and it says Carrie Lake, plaintiff, lead plaintiff, lead counsel, first lawyer listed, Alan M. Dershowitz. Right. So it is, he's not just listed among the lawyers there. He is listed as lead attorney to be noticed on the docket, kind of point one.

0:38:05 Thomas: Yeah, that's that seems like a bad document, wow.

0:38:07 Andrew: Two, number 97 was the motion for sanctions, of docket number 97. And that specifically says against counsel. And it lists the counsel who were served with that motion and who were previously alleged to have been served with the Rule 11 notice, which you don't file, that doesn't go on the docket, that's just a piece of paper you send to the other side. And first person listed, Alan M. Dershowitz. So he receives a copy of the sanctions motion. He receives a copy of the Rule 11 motion. Then entry number, and this is the kicker, entry number 99 is the opposition, right, by Carrie Lake to the motion for sanctions.

And the opposition is signed slash slash Alan Dershowitz. Right. Other lawyers are on it as well. But his name is on the opposition to the motion for sanctions. I do not think you can say, I don't know. No, it's not. He now he has now alleged, well, you know, that is implied without stating that did not authorize co -counsel to file that signature. And that's what led to the state saying like and Katie Katie Hobbs saying, like, yeah, well you work that out with your co -consult like that's not we don't know anything about

0:39:04 Thomas: Well I didn't read it, oh, yeah, yeah.

0:39:24 Andrew: That. That, yeah, you must bring that specifically. And nowhere, right, this also has, in addition to Alan Dershowitz's declaration, it has an affidavit from Andrew D. Parker, right? The co -counsel that he alleges is running the whole thing. And I'm going to read it because it does not say what Dershouitz wants it to say, right. So it says, I, I'm Andrew D Parker. Parker. I'm an attorney with the firm of Parker Daniels Kybort LLC. I represent the plaintiffs in this matter. With respect to the above captioned case, Parker Daniel's Kybord retained Alan Dershowitz as an of -counsel consultant to be part of our legal team representing the plaintiffs in this case for the purpose of providing legal counsel regarding constitutional issues.

0:39:24 Thomas: Well, that's a major allegation, right, that's a, yeah,

0:40:13 Andrew: He was not retained to investigate the underlying facts in the case. Mr. Dershowitz was part of the case as of - counsel and was intended to be identified in all pleadings as such. Mr. Dershowitz was correctly identified as such in the complaint and amended complaint. To the extent the word of was left off other filings, this occurred only due to an administrative oversight. Both Mr. Dershowitz and I understood he was to be identified as of counsel. The pleadings filed by Parker Daniels Kybert, which included Mr. Dershewitz's signature block, were authorized by Mr. Dersiewitz as of council, and it was understood that Mr. Derszewitz would be on these filings as of Council. Not saying you forged my name in the signature block. That is saying the exact opposite. I knew I let you sign my name. I wanted you to sign my name under a I'm not doing this kind of work agreement.

0:41:00 Andrew: But when sign your name to the opposition, you're responsible for the contents of that opposition. And this is just bizarre

0:41:08 Thomas: It seems weird to be like, I gave him permission to sign my name in a, there are no consequences for me signing my name, type of way, like well, then, what, what is that? What did then that's nothing.

0:41:10 Andrew: To me that. Yeah, that's that's

0:41:21 Thomas: That's trying to have your cake and eat it too. I don't know. I didn't think of a funny, that's

0:41:21 Andrew: Not a thing. Yeah. It's trying to get paid without having to do any work. This is really kind of the bottom line, because

0:41:29 Thomas: Right. Which we all look, we all want that, but

0:41:34 Andrew: But not if you're a lawyer. So here's here's the bottom line of all of this. Dershowitz, the sanctions are going to run against Alan DERSHOWITZ. These show cause order was nonsense. It was filed by a lawyer who himself ought not to be practicing law and is separately under investigation and will likely be disciplined by the state of Arizona. And if you are a Massachusetts lawyer, don't take legal advice for a podcast to do do your own investigation, but click through on the show notes and file a bar complaint against my old mentor, Alan Dershowitz. This is reprehensible conduct. And the fact that he has signed on to this, you know, it's my first day. I was just of counsel.

0:42:20 Andrew: No one knows. I don't have to research. Anything is an indication. And again, view it in the light most favorable to Alan Dershowitz. He's no longer his health is is such that he can no longer practice law. Well, I'm sorry. Then then then at that point, stop practicing law.

0:42:34 Thomas: Incapable of being a lawyer. Yeah. Retire. Yeah,

0:42:39 Andrew: Yeah, you you still have you have more money than you could possibly spend before you're done with this mortar coil.

0:42:39 Thomas: Yeah. Apparently you have enough money to blow it on terrible defenses for your sanctions thing.

0:42:48 Andrew: You can go into full-time punditry on Fox News. They would love to have you. Alan Dershowitz has no lack of opportunities to make money. He will not be bagging groceries. It can't practice law, don't practice. Law and

0:43:06 Thomas: Yeah? Right, final offer. I'll now only ever be of of of council Yeah.

0:43:10 Andrew: Counsel. Right.

0:43:11 Thomas: Well,

0:43:11 Andrew: Yeah, I that's where the bottom line is, is that when you are a lawyer and you sign on, and and I really like the fact that Katie the Hobbs's lawyers made this point in their opposition, you lent your name and your credibility to a guy who hucks pillows, and that that's just, maybe you should have done that.

0:43:32 Thomas: There's nothing wrong with selling pillows, it's all the other stuff that he does, there's plenty of Good, pillow salesmen, uh, sure.

0:43:34 Andrew: So No. Right, I I agree, I agree. With that. There's plenty

0:43:40 Thomas: We have some listening in, fact, we have kind of, so we've advertised for pillows, uh, come on.

0:43:40 Andrew: Of bloody fine but Yeah, that's true, that's Sure,

0:43:48 Thomas: Let Hughes without pillows cast

0:43:48 Andrew: That pillow is cast the first pillow

0:43:51 Thomas: Them do the first pillow fight, yeah, yeah.

0:43:53 Andrew: Um, your name to an insurrectionist and, uh, and they're going to be consequences, so

0:43:58 Thomas: Right, well. Well, that was, uh, wow. There's so much. I, it, it just reminds me of, I know it's obligatory, basically Matt Groening reference, but the Futurama where they're talking to the chicken lawyer, and there's the bars, you know, and then at the end of the scene, he's like, well, we'll just have to see how this trial go. My current trial goes, and, uh. Like, all right, well, good luck with that. And they leave, and it's the lawyer that's in jail. It's very reminiscent of that. It's Right, well, that's, um, again, happen to a worse lawyer.

I, this is, I seriously, I don't understand, look, I get that the insurrectionists, I get the Kraken, I get that they know nothing and are horrible, I don't understand when, when there's a lawyer like, like this guy that Alan Dershowitz's lawyer hired, Alan Dershewitz's lawyers lawyer hired, and and that's a legitimate person, and they're doing a terrible, like, just no concept of the law, I'm just so, so puzzled? Like, do they just, is it just a sense of, like, impunity or whatever? Like, are they just so privileged that they're like, yeah, we can just file this bullshit, we'll get out of it or something. Like, what, what are you, what in your mind is the explanation for that?

0:44:22 Andrew: Right Exactly right, no.

0:45:02 Andrew: I I know, I mean, it feels like, and I, and like the way you put it, I mean, it feel like a an erosion of the norms and standards of the legal profession, and it's part of why, you know, I do these episodes, right, because it outrages me that you share the same profession as Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, right, Jack Willinchick, and and, God help me, Alan Dershowitz. Right. Like, once everything's up for grabs, and that's where we are. You Jack Wilinczyk has hired a lawyer to to write a letter to bar disciplinary counsel saying, oh, the electors are fake, I get that, but the fake electors might allow us to steal the real election does not somehow count as advocating false testimony, and and once you've convinced yourself that you can make that argument, I guess you can convince yourself of anything, I don't know, I

0:45:52 Thomas: These people suck and I hope they get sanctioned and sanctioned again. And then they're going to hire each other for each other's sanctions. And then they're gonna do so badly that they'll get sanctioned for those sanctions. And what I've learned is that that'll all end up in about a four day suspension of being a lawyer and then they'll be fine. They'll be on their way. Continue to be a lawyer.

0:46:09 Andrew: Hope it's more than that, so

0:46:12 Clip: Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar will eat you.

0:46:17 Thomas: And now it's time for T3BE, that is GPT-3BE. Thomas and a a robit, take the bar exam and let's see if I bested the robit for a second time. I don't know. It seems impossible. Here we go.

0:46:24 Andrew: Alright, This is a follow-up question. City College is funded by the county government of State X. City College issues an email directive that all employees disclose all Social Club memberships at the start of every school year. The purpose of the directive is unclear, most employees make the disclosure out of fear of losing their jobs, but a college accountant challenges the directive as non-mandatory and then this, so that's the same fact pattern as the last question

0:46:57 Thomas: Could have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that pesky college accountant.

0:47:01 Andrew: And so then this, uh, question says, can the college accountant call one of her fellow employees to testify that the directive was distributed only via email and Yeah, and your, uh, chat gpt answered B, "Yes, because it is relevant," and you answered the more specific, "Yes, because it is to whether it was advisory or mandatory." Um, both of you discarded no A, "No, because email mail is not a proper forum for college instruction." I don't even know what those words would mean in that particular that, just, you know, okay, so that was a gimme. Yep, and then, uh, you also discarded C, "Yes, because it is relevant to the issue of state action." Um, the fact that neither of you thought that was a viable choice, the, the more you, you answer it, helps explain why you, Thomas, are correct

0:47:15 Thomas: What a weird question.

0:47:39 Thomas: Yeah. Okay. Glad that wasn't it.

0:47:59 Thomas: Hey!

0:47:59 Andrew: In picking the more specific D. So yeah, so ChatBot basically gave an analysis that I think supported D uh, with the vaguer answer. I'm really glad we got a chance to do this question because the bar does questions like this all the time. Um, relevant, but then the question, when it, when it gives you two different kinds of relevant that it could be, if one of those is false, then that helps indicate that you want a more precise answer. It's not all kinds of relevant. Remember, relevant means having a tendency to make an admissible piece of evidence more likely, right? And so how do we know as to whether this is state action or not? We know that from the asserted facts. City College is funded by the county government of State X. So they receive state funds, this is state action, uh, whether they've used the email or attached it to the wings of sparrows, it does not matter.

Um, the, the City College is acting, they are acting in a way that implicates state action. It doesn't matter how they act, but why might it be relevant to know whether they did it via email or not? Well, you, you have any dinosaur professors who are you,

0:48:05 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

0:49:09 Andrew: Uh, the old partner who was next to me at Covington and Burling, or like Donald Trump, who don't use email, right? I don't, you know, who knows, you might have that. And so, uh, might bear on whether it was distributed to the entire faculty, and so therefore that might bear on whether it is, uh, advisory or mandatory. And so, so you, I think, correctly deciphered it.

0:49:14 Thomas: Hmm.

0:49:30 Thomas: I feel like I nailed this. Wow.

0:49:32 Andrew: Yeah, you absolutely nailed it. You're on a big winning streak, and chatbot is 0 for 2, my friend.

0:49:33 Thomas: All right. Take that, chatbot! Suck

0:49:38 Andrew: And I want to add a little bit on chatbot here, probably heard about the do-not-pay guy who's offering a million dollars to a lawyer to come in and parrot what his chatbot would say at a Supreme Court oral argument, fact that that would get the lawyer disbarred, it wouldn't be practical whatever that, like the could be, could be worse than what you would come up with ordinarily but like, yeah, not, we're not there, like you can take the power of the internet and you can synthesize it, uh, you still be, um, wrong and

0:49:59 Thomas: It! Yeah, yeah. Sidney Powell might do it. Rudy might do it. Yeah. All right.

0:50:16 Andrew: And we've seen chatbot kind of do that in going over to where, you know, they've recited a lot of relevant stuff. Uh, ultimately, at the end of the day, uh, not pass the bar exam, so

0:50:27 Thomas: Well, there you go. I win. Terminator loses, and I'm sure we'll pay for it as a race down the line. But who else is the big winner? Who else bested the machine? Well, that we know of, that may also be a machine. There may be a better machine that played on Twitter. We don't know. Who is our big winner of GPT-3BE this week?

0:50:45 Andrew: Week's winner is Jaeger von Kass, who writes, "Hopefully I have a relevant idea for T3BE here. Relevance is relative. Evidence should be relevant to a relevant fact at issue." The The question, said the accountant, quote, "challenged the directive as non -mandatory. So admitting evidence in support of that sounds a little relevant. So, D, well, you know,

0:51:02 Thomas: Sure. It's easy from where you're sitting. Wait until you're in the hot seat, facing down a cold-blooded killer robot. They made it sound a lot easier than I did. Yeah.

0:51:16 Andrew: Yeah, some of the folks went with B. Be, so I think that, uh, it's, it's, it's a little more nuanced than just saying relevant. It's the question of does it have to be the right kind of relevant. But Jaeger picked the right one, so everyone let's give them a follow, they are at J-A-G-E-R-V-A-N-K-A-A-S, and congratulations on being this week's winner. Yeah.

0:51:39 Thomas: Congratulations, you and I will be the first to die, and

0:51:41 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,

0:51:50 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats at patreon.com/law. They are the best, they're the ones that make the show happen, we love them, so all the benefits and just friendship forever, friendship from us. Uh, we're on our second quartile, and I'll start us off. Thank you to Benny the Cripple, I purplecouch.com, going through a divorce, listen to Assembled Experts to shift your mindset from failed marriage to fresh start, loaf of orange Jamie, yes, Alan Dershowitz signed the documents, but he kept his underwear on while he did it.

0:52:22 Thomas: Comedian Aaron Trahan at Comedienne AET comes to Mad House Comedy Club in San D 'Ago. Objection, Perry Mason has no relevance to this case, overruled. LT, if you must cross a course cross cow across a crowded cow crossing, cross the cross course cow across the cow crossing carefully. Not bad, that was first try.

0:52:22 Andrew: That Was excellent.

0:52:45 Thomas: Once did stand up in a club full of ghosts, but was met with a chorus of boos. Xavier Branch at Atomic Penguin 7 on Twitter's Twitter. Patreon name has been scrubbed due to a scheduled Patreon donation as per USSS protocol. Meatloaf says fraud vitiates everything it touches, but it won't touch that. Dr. Scoop Little. Doug and Heather, Mr and Mrs Pusher. Love the extra episodes. Oh, cool. Glad you're enjoying them. Two fabulous trans people who completely forgot about Andrew's moinkbox ad read. Huh. I don't really know what that means, but okay. I never forget about his moink box ad reads. Brent Medling. Sean McGovern. That thing in the attic. Scarf season is coming. KellyWovet .com.

0:53:26 Thomas: Katie Herman at the Ehrlich Law Office PLLC. Visit EhrlichLawOffice.com For a fun fantasy story, read The King's Own by W. Marshall out now on Amazon. The Fat Jedi Eating Cake and Drinking Emperor's Brewery Beer in the Death Star Canteen. Liberal's Own Guns 2, Support Root Cause Mitigation, Not Ineffective Gun Control. Your turn, Andrew.

0:53:26 Andrew: Excellent and a Big thank you to OA Chicago live show, you bring the law-talking guys and I'll call dibs for a parking spot by throwing an old chair on the street. Yeah, that's a, that's a time-honored tradition. Zach Bloom, hamburger, Santa tell Morgan, Katam's son have done, so Wall Street's ran by algorithms, that's why Eli Lily crashed. Ray, help, I'm trapped in a podcast factory, pizza school. The corgi is Polka Dog Bakery's newest brand ambassacorg. Use code pizza school for 10 off. Yummy dog treats. That is amazing. Legal Eagle is so handsome. A lawyer's favorite drink is a subpoena colada. Crazy Animal Lady, proud supporter of two podcasts, OA and Gaslit Nation. Hey.

0:54:34 Andrew: Nice choices, uh, although you know we have some other good podcasts out there. The Smiths. Between Between two teens with tattoos of tweens, listening to Tattoo and Ween on Tatooine. Budget Botanist on Fiverr enjoying boozy lemonade from my living room lemons. And you can too. I think Budget Botonist just invited us all over for boozy lemonade. Wow, can't even read this. This handwriting is so terrible. We really wasted this month's shout out. Listener Thomas F., stay safe. And remember, many police and military people are hardcore right -wingers who won't do the right thing. Yeah, true. True. Sparkle Donkey is so handsome.

0:54:44 Thomas: Wow.

0:55:11 Andrew: Still love Sparkle Donkey tequila. One smart cookie sent Cutters, wishing the Fat Jedi a safe trip with his precious at Emperor's Brewery cargo. Jennifer Joukowsky, GDT, says everyone knows that the police can arrest you without, page two of two, your consent. Maritime laws, freedom menu, not a Last Week Tonight producer, wink, wink. Supreme Court justices should have 18 year term limits, and so should Conrad Michaels, seconding calls for a Rochester live show, you bring yourselves, I'll bring three heads and Rohrbach beer, yeah.

0:55:43 Thomas: Sounds good. I love it. Three heads, though. I don't know what that means, but if they have beer, then I'll come. Let's face it. That's our show. Thanks so much, everybody, for listening. Thanks to our Hall of Fame patrons, as always. And we will see you tomorrow for a rapid response. See you then.

0:55:47 Andrew: Alright.

0:56:03 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.

0:56:36 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.

0:57:14 Andrew: That, that, that, I, I, I cannot imagine, right, and, and, and the