OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE35

Transcript

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

0:00:47 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode T3B35, and I'm your host Thomas Smith. Is Bar Bar Exam Prep with Heather. And this will be the answer to last week's question, question 34, whether or not I can sue for someone saying I liked a certain soda. Then, of course, we'll get question 35. Five. A minor audio note for those people, those few, few people who notice things like this. On a little mini trip right now.

So parts of this are recorded in a hotel room with some echo and a different mic. And the other parts of it is recorded. And I'm recording it in the normal place.

So if you're wondering why it sounds slightly different, that's the reason, though I do my best to make it sound pretty good, but all right, enough said, why don't we get on over to Heather for the answer to question 34 right after this break, which you can of course avoid by going to patreon.com/law, skip all the ads and get bonus stuff. We have planned a very special bonus this month. Matt is super excited about this.

I'll give you a hint, he's reading an entire book that just came out to do a little lot awful books. And I'm super excited. So good reasons to be on patreon.com/law. And actually, patrons, I normally take this little plug out, but I'm going to leave that in because there was a little preview of what we're going to have. So there you have it. Right. With Heather after this. All

0:02:10 Thomas: Right, Heather, it is time to inevitably have me have gotten this wrong. Let's answer the question. It's so embarrassing, a question about me, and I couldn't remember having done any of that. Um, but first, why don't you remind us what question 34 from last week was.

0:02:26 Heather: Our famous podcast hosting comedian Thomas Had been on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and had talked about his favorite soda, which is obviously your body double because I heard you say that you don't drink soda, so this is your um drinking twin, and then um uh soda brand used um basically name and likeness, and then also a quote from the show, uh um, an ad campaign on social media. And so then what Thomas did was Thomas sued, and we're trying to find out whether or not Thomas is going to win in his lawsuit against against the company for using his statement and picture in their ad campaign. And remember correctly, your answer, your first choice answer was B. Then and your second choice answer with C.

0:02:28 Thomas: Yeah.

0:03:02 Thomas: And Now I know you're gonna ask me what, what category of question? And I'm actually, I'm thinking about that. I'm not super sure. 'Cause like on one hand it feels free speechy, but this doesn't really feel like a constitutional law. I'm going to, is this a torts question?

0:03:18 Heather: You're absolutely right. It's a torts question.

0:03:18 Thomas: Oh, nice. That was, I should have answered that at the time, but, I but hope people trust that I just thought of that now. I didn't cheat. So I never cheat. Yeah. Okay. So it, guess answer A does say I've been defamed and that would be like tortsy. Wasn't sure if it was going to be like a free speech thing, but okay. Torts. All right. Nailed that. Well, that's the end of the show. I'm one for one. That was a question.

0:03:19 Heather: Yeah.

0:03:32 Heather: Yeah, well, I'm glad that you said it was torts. And sounds like you've picked up, hopefully, some tips along the way since we started working together. Of questions within torts that aren't tested that often in the bar exam, which is why this question might feel a little bit unfamiliar. Is a category of question called other torts. And within it, there's an umbrella called invasion of privacy torts, and there's four of torts to fall under the invasion of privacy torts. So we're actually in this category. Like again, it doesn't get tested that often. You might have a question on your bar exam for when you sit, Thomas, that might look a little bit like this. I can walk you through what those torts are. I call them the fade torts and it sounds a little but silly, but I Use, well, I use mnemonic devices because there's so much information when you're going to study for the bar exam that it's hard to keep it all straight if you don't use some little Tricks.

0:04:21 Thomas: Sounds cool.

0:04:32 Thomas: For sure.

0:04:33 Heather: Yeah. And so Fade, this is F -A -I -D and not F -E -D -E. And so that's how I remember it. The first one is false light. You might've heard this. Of private facts about a person by sharing their views that that person doesn't have or saying things that they didn't do. Publication, when we're talking about publication and the invasion of privacy towards what we're talking about isn't just publishing something in the newspaper or on social media. But what it means is it's more than just having a conversation between two people. It's making sure that we're having that said or what's referred to as published third party. So if it's just you and me talking, that's not enough. It has to go beyond the two of us. So like, obviously, when this podcast goes out, this is a publication.

0:04:42 Thomas: Oh All right.

0:05:17 Heather: Also have appropriation that also comes up. That's the A. that's And the use of a plaintiff's name or likeness for the defendant's commercial advantage without their consent.

0:05:26 Thomas: Like maybe what we're doing here.

0:05:28 Heather: Mean, it sounds a little familiar, right? We've got intrusion of privacy. That the I I and also is referred to as intrusion upon seclusion. This is when a person invades the private affairs of another, where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

0:05:43 Thomas: I don't think I know that one.

0:05:44 Heather: Yeah, this might look like eavesdropping on a private conversation using an electronic device, something like that.

0:05:47 Thomas: Oh, interesting. Okay. And that's just if you do it for yourself. That's not like you've published it anywhere. It's like Gandalf could have sued Samwise Gamgee for dropping Eve's. Even though Samwise didn't go to the local Shire newspaper and publish anything about it, it's just that invasion. That's interesting. I never thought about that. That.

0:06:00 Heather: Absolutely.

0:06:10 Heather: And you picked up on something really important on these four privacy torts. This is the only one that doesn't have a publication requirement. Then our last one is disclosure. This is public disclosure of private facts where the plaintiff, is highly offensive to a reasonable person and the information isn't of a legitimate concern to the public. Ist kind of a disfavored tort. So if you haven't really heard about it, it's because it's kind of gone by the wayside and doesn't come up on the bar exam. If it does, it's very, very rare.

0:06:16 Thomas: Hey, is that different from like defamation? Exactly.

0:06:40 Heather: Is such a great question. I am so glad that you asked. The invasion of privacy torts, that is its own umbrella. And defamation is a separate tort. That help a little bit?

0:06:48 Thomas: Yeah, so we're in the category of just like, like stuff that's not We're in a different category.

0:06:54 Heather: Yeah. And if this also helps, defamation always requires a defamatory statement made by the defendant. And those typically have to adversely affect a person's reputation, first and foremost. We've got to be saying something that's kind of about diminishing a person's respect or trying to do something that might deter someone from associating with a plaintiff. Like, for example, if you were saying something about how much I suck or how terrible I am, that certainly falls under that category of being defamatory, right? Right?

0:07:21 Thomas: Would never say such a thing.

0:07:23 Heather: So that brings us to answer choice A. So you had said right away that you were feeling like this was an incorrect answer choice. Was the inclination for saying that?

0:07:30 Thomas: Yeah, well, I don't know what about saying someone drinks Columbia Cola would be defamatory unless I'm just using a colloquial definition that's not technically true. Don's see how I'm being defamed exactly. If they said that I only drink Mountain Dew, I actually would sue them for defamation. So that's interesting. But assuming I don't know, Columbia Cola sounds made up. So assuming that's not like a Mountain Dew equivalent, then yeah, no, no reason. It's like just saying you drink Pepsi. It'S like, that'S not defamatory.

0:07:44 Heather: Yeah, that's exactly it. There's that's exactly it, yeah. We don't have anything bad here that's going to theoretically affect your Like you said, no, reference to Mountain Dew here. So A's out.

0:08:11 Thomas: I just offended so much of the audience. Sorry. Sorry, everybody. Mountain Dew is disgusting. I don'T make the rules. It just just is disgusting. I'm sorry.

0:08:20 Heather: Colored green drink doesn't excite you. And so that's also part of the reason that A is incorrect, as you said. Addition to what we talked about just a second ago, it's a different, it'S a different tort altogether. And this is asking about an invasion of, this is essentially a question about one of those invasion of privacy torts.

0:08:22 Thomas: Yeah.

0:08:38 Heather: That's And you had also eliminated D almost right away. Talk a little bit about what your thinking was about eliminating D.

0:08:46 Thomas: D is no, because Thomas's appearance on TV created an implied consent to reasonable use of anything he might say. I think it just feels way too broad. I mean, there's fair use of stuff. I'm Um, sure there's going to be some amount, like if we, we Could play the clip, you know, a short clip of me doing that on this podcast and talk about it. You anything I might say in a reasonable use. And the fact that, like, I just think commercial purpose is just so much different than that.

0:08:54 Heather: Yeah.

0:09:11 Heather: And a great observation, especially because when words like "anything" come into an answer choice, like you said, oftentimes it's too broad. And what the bar exam is often doing is trying to test something specific. So "anything," "anything," "anything," "never," "always" all words like that should always make like the hair on your neck stand up make and you want to double check the answer choice again, because it's too broad. Other thing about this answer choice is that it's trying to get at a defense to the invasion of privacy, towards and the defense, the defense that's most associated is consent. There's two types of consent, implied consent and express consent. And you hit on the exact reason why implied consent can't really work here. It's too broad. And also, do we have any facts to suggest that double Thomas impliedly consented to allowing Columbia Cola to use his likeness or words?

0:09:46 Thomas: Well, I mean, getting on and saying I only drink Columbia Cola because it's the best refreshing shop shop drink. I mean. It seems like there's some argument that that would imply that that Cola could say that I only drank it. Know. I Like, maybe that's not the right legal thing happening here. It doesn't seem insane to me that there'd be some sort of implied consent there. But And again, would that be express consent?

0:10:20 Heather: Looks a lot more like, let's give a really good example. So the Olympics may be happening right now, right? And a lot of athletes tend tend to have sponsorships or endorsements, right. Usually sign an agreement, and that's express consent to say, hey, company, you can use my name, you can use my words, you can use my likeness to sell your product. And that's what express consent will look like in those scenarios, right? In exchange for the athlete to get what I assume is money and hopefully product as well, right. Consent often will look like that. And then that will be a defense to these torts, invasion these of privacy torts. Really hard to have an implied consent in scenarios because it's really hard to try to imply that someone agreed to something, especially to commercial use. To your point of that would be really broad, right? This answer choice is broad and be really hard to kind of try to pull out and to try to prove each and every time because oftentimes celebrities are, they're on TV, they're maybe they're wearing um clothing or

0:10:29 Thomas: Hmm. Right. Yeah, right. Yeah. Kind of made that point. Yeah

0:11:21 Heather: Exactly, and so that's how answer choice D is wrong. Then we're down to B and C, just like you were when you were reviewing the fact pattern. So we've got B, yes, because Thomas's likeness was appropriated for a commercial purpose without his consent, or C, no, because the ad accurately reflects what Thomas said publicly before a large audience. So now we're looking at, does the accuracy matter when we're at the answer choice or are we looking for the appropriation for commercial purpose? So you had made a really good point about, you for for the purposes of C, memes, right? Saying like, oh, we have some memes out there.

0:11:50 Thomas: Yeah Yeah, I mean, most of the Internet is just a picture of somebody with what they said on something. So it's like it feels pretty close to like this is what the entire Internet is.

0:11:58 Heather: It is. What might the difference be between like a meme floating out on the internet and this particular fact pattern?

0:12:08 Thomas: Well, as I eventually went with, I feel like using something for a commercial for the actual company, using it for a commercial purpose is different enough that I went with B.

0:12:20 Heather: And that's exactly the reason, right, because the law here really really makes the distinction about being able to use someone's name and likeness and doing so for commercial purposes, right? For the purposes of making money off of that. It's the same thing. See that when you look into intellectual property. Law cares a lot about what happens when you start to make money off things when you haven't received permission, and that's a similar thing that's happening here, right. Did they get Thomas's permission?

0:12:46 Thomas: Did not.

0:12:47 Heather: Did not. So correct. The answer was B.

0:12:49 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, man, I was very close to going with C. I'm not going to lie. I thought there could be a technicality issue here. Like it's like, well, I did. All they did was quote what he said on the thing. And I'm glad I stuck with my guns. What call, though. But yeah, I think ultimately I did settle in my mind on like, yeah, but commercial purpose. I think we just have special, that's a special category of thing, right?

0:12:56 Heather: No.

0:13:15 Heather: Exactly. Company is making money, we really want to make sure that they're getting your permission and consent before they go ahead and just make it rain right all over whatever, without asking you first.

0:13:28 Thomas: Right, well, shoot, I think I'm alternating here. I seem to be going, yeah, I had that four streak, and then I've gone miss, make, miss, make. Okay, so not so bad. I it stands, I am 19 for 30 in the new era, and that's 63 .33%. So, you know, not too bad. Feeling pretty good. Nice to get, that was so close. I was really close to picking C and that would have been embarrassing. So it would've been funnier though. So maybe I should have.

0:13:53 Heather: You couldn't hear me rooting for you. I was like, no, stick with B, stick with B. Trust your gut.

0:13:56 Thomas: Oh, that's nice of you. Cause I, you know, you could root for the funnier option though. I won't be too offended. Now we'll have to see who this week's big winners are, but, great group of responses. I'm loving the participation. Runaway winner on reddit.com/r/openargs is none other than Dr. Brian Gillis, favorite astrophysicist of Serious Inquiries Only. Brian has done some really fun episodes on you're into physics, if you're in to -fi, that kind of thing, definitely go check them out. Says, answer B is correct. Correct.

In The Simpsons, Treehouse of Horror 19, short, I think that was way after I stopped watching, so I don't know what this is, but any Simpsions reference is always good. To get ahead in deadvertising, Krusty the Clown has discovered that his likeness is being used in a mural without his permission.

However, had been using the mural to try to soothe his upset frustration at Krustie having his image removed from the mural, and upsetting Maggie, Homer shoves Krusty, accidentally sending him flying into a nearby wood chipper and killing him. Intention, this act of involuntary manslaughter solves his problem. While alive, Krustly had the right to control the use of his image, but upon his death.

Realizing that this clever legal loophole could be used to get around celebrities refusing to shill products, an advertising agency hires Homer to kill a series of celebrities so that their images could be legally used. In other words, if Columbia Cola wanted to use Thomas's likeness without his consent, they should have killed him first.

0:15:29 Thomas: So yeah, that's a fantastic answer. Brian is our big winner on reddit.com/r/openargs. And now, of course, we've got to go to our patron winner at patreon.com/law. Lots of good answers here. I think I'll go with Kate from Seattle, who says, says, "Here's why I think it's B. I used to watch Keeping Up with the Kardashians." Know, embarrassing but true. "And this sort of thing came up once on the show. Was in New York looking at a bunch of mixtapes for sale on the street, and she noticed one with a picture of herself on the cover. She said, 'I didn't authorize this. I should sue,' or something like that. I trust someone as image obsessed as Kim K to know when her image can and can't be used. I can't imagine that the large audience makes a difference. There was still no consent to use his image to sell soda." Well done, Kate, Kate from Seattle, you've nailed it. Again to all who played. I this break, we'll get question 35.

0:16:22 Thomas: Arguments is brought to you by Rocket Money. I love to say this because it's absolutely true. I was a Rocket Money customer before they were a sponsor, long before they're a sponsor, because they are perfect, perfect for me. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so that you can grow your savings. Rocket Money, I have full control over my subscriptions and a clear view of my expenses. And that's the thing.

If you're like me and you have no time and you have ADHD and maybe you like signing up for things sometimes, boy, you sure can end up signed up to a lot of things and duplicate things. Nowadays, a lot of the streaming services, guess, I think, I think it's pretty easy to accidentally pay two or three times for the same one depending on the package. It's crazy. Rocket Money helps you with all of that.

You don't have to be combing through every single charge on all your bank statements and all your credit cards. Cards. Rocket Money does all that for you. So you don't have to worry about it. Can see all your subscriptions in one place. And that, again, that doesn't matter if it's different accounts, that'll get you. Cause sometimes I sign up on different accounts and don't realize it, different bank accounts, different cards, it's all there in one place.

If there's something you don't want, Rocket Money can help you cancel it with a few taps. Million users, and it saved a total of 500 million in canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a year when using all the app's features. Stop wasting money on things that you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions by going to rocketmoney.com/opening. That's rocketmoney.com/opening. One more time, rocketmoney.com/opening

0:18:00 Thomas: Heather, let's see if I can keep the magic alive, keep the dream going, stay in the 60-ish area, and uh, let's have question 35. Oh.

0:18:10 Heather: After their divorce, Patty and Dan were engaged in a bitter custody battle over their five dogs. Is seeking to testify regarding statements made by Dan before the divorce, in he told her that he did not feel that he could properly care for the dogs himself. Self. Objects, alleging that the statements are privileged as confidential communication made during the marriage. The court admit the statements?

0:18:15 Thomas: Oh.

0:18:34 Heather: Yes, because the privilege does not apply. B. Yes. Because the privilege ends upon divorce. No, because Patty has no motive to lie and D. No. Because it's not a privilege. Because the statements were confidential and made during the marriage, okay.

0:18:47 Thomas: This istough one, this is a tough one, okay. So So, all right, I feel like we all vaguely know about the marital privilege -y thing. And I think the important thing, one important thing is that when it comes to privilege, I got to think about, like, like who, who has the privilege. And so I think from experience, when it come to attorney -client privilege, obviously the client has, of has the privilege there and can, like, waive it.

Like, who, so who can waive it, I guess, is what I was trying to say. The client can, what, it's not like the attorney can go and just be like, "Well, I'm waiving the attorney and client privilege when it comes to this," like marriage thing. I think it's, I think it's slightly different in that, think the, be made to testify against your, your husband or wife, I guess, in old timey language it would be.

So that means it could be different, because it's like, if you can't be made to testify, I guess you would have the option. Like, if Patty wants to testify, think she can. I think that's usually how it works. Like if I'm a criminal or something my wife wants to justify against me, I think she can, she just can't being forced to. So I think it's different. But we got a whole different thing here. I the divorce matter?

So if that's true, I don't think the divorce matters because she's deciding she wants to, it's also a custody battle. So it's not, I don't know if that matters. It's not like criminal, but often, like, pleading like the fifth or taking the fifth can still apply in a certain civil context, because could be admitting to crimes that you could be charged with, like, in a separate proceeding, I think. So, like, I think the same rule probably applies.

Alright got a bitter custody battle over their five dogs, which, as a dog person, as more of a cat person, I'd be like, you know what, you can have the five incredibly burdensome creatures that will now take over your entire house, that's fine, but that's just me. Uh, Patty is seeking to testify regarding statements made by Dan before the divorce, and when she told her he did not feel he could properly care for the dogs himself.

Dan objects, alleging the statements are privileged as confidential communication made during the marriage. So is that the same thing? Let's, as confident communication, so that, hmm, that strikes me as like a different, is that that the same thing, privilege? Think of this at first, but is there more than one kind of privilege here?

Is there like a privilege of just communications versus actually testif, can't being made to testify against them, because that might be a different thing, because like your partner or testifying against you could be different, could be more than just like your confidential communications, I guess. It could be like testifying about other things, but I don't know, I don't know if I' m splitting hairs there. Okay, maybe the answers will help me sort through this.

It is, by the way, after the last question, or was the one before, in which had the horrible husband who essentially killed the diabetic wife, I think this Patty, Patty and Dan, maybe they had an argument over that question.

0:21:29 Thomas: Patty couldn't believe Dan was so heartless in how he answered that T3B question. So they're divorcing. Okay. A, yes, because the privilege does not apply. Well, that's not helpful. Does not apply... I mean, it may end up being the right answer, but it doesn't really... I can't really divine anything from that answer. Feel like custody, divorce, whatever, that stuff, like whole battle, I think, is going to be over this kind of stuff. Like, I feels like that's going what you're talking about. I don't know.

I've never gone through a divorce myself, but I did watch Marriage Story back in the day. B, yes, because the privilege ends upon divorce. That I don't think makes sense. I think even that were true, I don't think divorcing would undo all that stuff, so, like, because he made the comments, the statements before divorce, I think they would become unprivileged after divorce.

That wouldn't be a good rule, I don't think, because it's just like stuff that you would thought was like privileged communication for you 30 years, all of a a sudden you divorce, and that's all fair game and proceedings. I don't think that's how it works. I'm gonna eliminate B. C, no, because Patty has no motive to lie. What? Now that is a... that one is so out of left field that I worry, like, is, could that be it?

That can't be, like, can even come up with a way to make that be the answer, which makes me nervous, because then will be the answer somehow. No motive to lie? I, she has every motive to lie. It's those five dogs that no one should want.

It I mean, if there's anyone with more of a motive to live potentially, just in general, than either party who's in a bitter custody battle, like, in general, like, it, though, those parties would both have a motive to lie, at least. So that see seems insane. I, that is crazy. If that ends up being it, then I'll just have to salute the question. Like, you bested me, question, but I'm eliminating B and C, so that gives me something to work with here.

You know, because the statements were confidential and made during the marriage? So, I guess we're down to A and C, and the question here now is, is kind of thing where there's some privilege to the communications, or is it what I was talking about at first, which is like, the wife can't be made to testify against the husband, but that's something she can decide to do if she wants to.

Is that what's going on, or is it a mystery third thing that I don't even know about? It slightly interesting, it's actually a little worried. If know that in the legal proceeding against Andrew, with Lydia, was privileged, except for the fact that I had shared some text messages publicly. And so those, I probably kind of waived the privilege on those.

That I say that, it does seem like that was a privilege that I waived, didn't really have anything to do with Lydia, but is that because Lydia was not technically a party in that? Had been the one who stole OA, and I was suing Lydia over having stolen OA, then maybe that's a different story. The only thing I worry about is if this privilege communication thing is slightly different than the testifying against against the husband or wife thing. Um, don't know.

I feel like this is a tough one, but I feel like if divorce and custody battles couldn't involve things that were said to each other during the marriage, then I don't know what it would even involve. Like, I feel like that would eliminate a lot of things. I think I'm going to stick with A and say yes, because the privilege does not apply.

Second choice answer was D, and and I'm a little bit worried that it could be D, but at least have also the benefit of A was my first instinct, which actually been right the last several times. I just need to stick with it. So I'm gonna go with A, with a second choice answer of D, but final answer A. So if you'd like to play along, make sure to answer on, if you're a patron, Patreon.com/law, that's the do it, right, on that thread. Read.

Or if you're not a patron, the second best place to do it is on reddit.com/r/openargs and find the post for T3B35. And they'll track your score that you got to use the spoiler thing, right? That I actually don't totally understand, but the are there. There's something you have to do in the answer that covers it for other people. It's really cool. I love that whole Reddit system.

So those, and if you are a patron, you can do both, and you should do both. And that way I can pick winners more efficiently. So, looking forward to answer this one, thanks, Heather, and we'll see you next week to find out who gets those dogs.

0:25:42 Thomas: Don't There's no chance I end up with these dogs, right? Just to be clear.

0:25:42 Heather: Thank you. I didn't know you were a cat person. Is

0:25:47 Thomas: I'm a cat person. We have a dog and that's .8 like more dogs than I need. Yeah. It's, I I do love Daisy, but it's, she's a, she'S, she''s a decently sized dog and it's like a little horse running around your house. I dont get it. Cause no, I love her. Daisy's grown on me for sure. But five dogs, five dogs. Maybe if I was on a farm and they lived outside, I would love that.

0:25:50 Heather: That Lydia's dog, my Dream is to have like, like a little bit of an animal rescue and to like do kind of fast, but you know, like when they're like at the end of their life and like faster them, so yeah.

0:26:17 Thomas: Yeah. I just want them to have their own place. I would like to be neighbors to plenty of dogs.

0:26:20 Heather: Yeah. Like. Next door, do.

0:26:28 Thomas: Yeah. And they go to work and they drive a car and they're like, that's the dog neighbors.

0:26:34 Heather: You remember Richard Scary? I don't.

0:26:35 Thomas: No.

0:26:35 Heather: Know if you're. Oh, so Richard's Scary was a, I, um, think he was an artist, and so when we were kids he did like kids' books and stuff, and so I always, that's what I think of is. Because there's like that.

0:26:43 Thomas: Oh. That. Does.

0:26:43 Heather: Picture.

0:26:43 Thomas: Sound.

0:26:43 Heather: Of the apple.

0:26:43 Thomas: Familiar.

0:26:44 Heather: Um. Like a little worm driving an apple car, and like that's, that's. What I picture. Is the dogs.

0:26:44 Thomas: Oh. Yeah. Yeah. See.

0:26:48 Heather: Driving like.

0:26:49 Thomas: There. You go. I need that, but it'd be like a bone or something, I don't.

0:26:49 Heather: That. Yeah. I'm.

0:26:51 Thomas: Know, some dog related thing, yeah, that I would love. All right, well, we'll see, uh, what happens next week on that one. All.

0:27:03 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:27:12 Thomas: Right, now we've got to thank our patrons, starting with the new ones. Let's see where we're catching up to. We're still backdated. We're in May. So, yeah, we're still in that big influx. There was an influx in February when I first got the show back, and then there was a big influx in May when people found out that I own the show outright. That's awesome. All thank you enough. I'll never forget it. And let's catch up with another 30 of them. So thank you to Christopher P. Backen, Meredith Donovan, Aaron Larson, Charlie Dennis, Paul D. Cargill, Joel Bell, Smith Family Vacation Fund, Forgotten Wisdom, Sanja Petrovic, Brigid Agresti, John Bradley, Daniel Dressios, Todd Stordahl, of symbols I can't read. I'm not sure if that's a language thing that comes in weirdly on the spreadsheet. Sorry about that. It's like, darn it, that's not worth much. Well, sorry. You Thank so much, new patrons. New -ish patrons. If I haven't seen them, they're new to me.

0:28:23 Thomas: Have I made that joke before? I feel like I haven't, and I can't believe it. Of course it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats on patreon.com/law. These are the folks that donate at the five dollar level and above for at least a month. Looking at the calendar, we're a 4T3BE month for August, so we'll do it in quarters here, in quartiles. So thank you, too. Why does Justice Thomas, the largest justice, not simply eat the other their justices?

0:28:49 Thomas: Another Simpsons reference. I love it. Rip into it.

0:28:54 Thomas: Oh, I love this. I'm so glad I have this back in my life. Rip Into It, of course, the Daryl Dads official, despite my protestations, official tagline. Hey, check out Daryll Dads. It's really good. Miss Behavior, Hanrahan, Starry Decisus has gone into hospice. Ian Goldfinch, Rana, like Rana Redlight, Cavalri. I mean, it's not cavalry. It's an I at the end. Cavalri. It's cavalry with an I at the end. D. Myers, Christine McCants, IT Coyote, and Jay Zachary Pike, author our of Orcanomics and other funny fantasy books. So much, top patrons. You're the best. Right. Well, that does it for today. Wait for Rapid Response Friday. For listening. Thanks Thanks for supporting, and I'll see you then.

0:29:46 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.