OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE36

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 Thomas Takes the Bar Exam or Bar Prep with Heather. Question 35, and we'll hear that brand new question 36. see, anything to announce? Got someone amazing helping us with social media, and that's picking up more and more, but for now check out the new Instagram for OA, and there's going to be other ones too, but the Instagram handle is OpenArgsPod, if you want to see some cool posts there. Don't worry, ThePersonHelpingUs is not an old, like me. Well, after this break, we're going to get to that answer to question 35 with Heather. So hop on to patreon.com/law. If you want to avoid this ad break and get the extra good stuff, we should be recording on Gorsuch's awful book very soon. Soon as Matt is done somehow reading that.

0:01:37 Thomas: Heather, um, are you doing today? Oh, Good, but Patty and Dan, on the other hand, that was Like a newscaster, I love that, like, that the small herd of dogs, yeah.

0:01:39 Heather: Good, um, I'm not divorced, yeah. It's They're in a bitter custody battle over their small herd of dogs, that's My, the career I'm aiming for, no. Just kidding. Well, and then, uh, she's trying to to court and testify about some of the things that Dan said to her while they were married. And we're trying to figure out whether or not the rules of evidence allow her to do that. Will the court allow in those statements that Dan had said to her while they were married?

0:01:59 Thomas: Yeah. And Can the dogs testify? Actually, I didn't even explore that element of it, that may factor in, we'll see. Oh,

0:02:22 Heather: Do you think that this is?

0:02:24 Thomas: Man, let's see, well, it's, it's not criminal, this is a crime to own five freaking dogs, no, it's, it's not, uh, to look, I have to cheat and look at the categories because I can never remember all of them, you know. Okay, here's the thing, think I would have said constitutional law because I thought that marriage can't testify thing was in the Constitution, but you just were talking about evidence, and I think this might be evidence, and that seems to be its own category. Uh, the rules of evidence.

0:02:50 Heather: That's exactly right. Right. It's evidence. Yeah, that's exactly it. Anytime you see a question that says, should or can the court admit the statements? It's usually evidence because we're talking about the admissibility. Like, will the court allow somebody to say something in open court? Will they allow for a piece of paper to come in or a piece, other piece of evidence, like usually like a document or something to that effect. Our subtopic is, you mentioned it the last time, but but maybe you want to give the listeners a reminder. What do you think our subtopic is?

0:02:51 Thomas: Okay.

0:03:21 Thomas: Law, I know, marriage law. Oh.

0:03:26 Heather: Yeah, actually, it's spousal privileges.

0:03:28 Thomas: Spousal privilege, okay. I never know, like, what level of granularity you're talking there. I don't. Oh.

0:03:32 Heather: Oh, yeah, sorry. It's spoucial privileges. And you had mentioned last time too, there's actually two. There's a spousial, that's okay.

0:03:39 Thomas: Shit, I'm a little worried now.

0:03:41 Heather: Don't. Two. There's the spousual testimonial immunity and the confidential marital communications. And we'll walk through each, but spousal privileges generally are about what you and your spouse are able to testify to in open court regarding what the two of you have said to each other during the marriage. We have two tip -offs.

So if you weren't sure, or if someone listening wasn't sure, the one of the tip -off is that we've got one spouse attempting to introduce something that the other spouse said during the marriage in court. And the other tip - off is that the fact pattern says that Dan is trying to keep the statement out by asserting that they're privileged confidential communication.

So when you had said, when you were kind of talking about that language, that was the question's way of trying to tell you to try to narrow the scope of the topic that it was testing. So we can walk through each type of spousal privilege today. Times. All right. So the spousial testimonial immunity is when one spouse, to what you're saying earlier, one spouse cannot be forced to testify against another spouse in a criminal proceeding, right? So typically this comes up if, let's say, one,

0:04:24 Thomas: Yeah.

0:04:42 Thomas: Married to Tony Soprano, for example. Oh.

0:04:44 Heather: Right, and I can't remember his wife's name, was it Carmen?

0:04:47 Thomas: Yeah, I think it is, it's Edie Falco, for some reason. I I remember the actress's name, but I can't, yeah, Carmen, Carmen?

0:04:54 Heather: Listen, I could be wrong, but let's Say Tony Soprano was on trial for, let's see, tax evasion.

0:04:56 Thomas: Yeah, just general mafia -ing. Oh, okay. Honor, look at him. He's just in a mafia show. He's in the show. He's got to be guilty of something.

0:05:07 Heather: I let's See the prosecution tried to bring Edie Falco on the stand for, let's say, Alex, really, his wife.

0:05:13 Thomas: She's like, you know, I'm just an actress. I'm not really the, you'd have to remember the character's name for me to testify. Oh, darn. Yeah, she's right, actually. That's another privilege we don't talk about.

0:05:24 Heather: And let's say he was being prosecuted for, like I said, let me say criminal conspiracy. Would happen is that the government cannot force, let us say Carmen is her name, I might be remembering that wrong, but they cannot force her to testify against him about anything that they said during the marriage. Let us say he he said to her during the marriage, let's say that he admitted, and they have it on tape, that that he committed the conspiracy, she can't testify to that because of the spousal testimony immunity. Can't force her to get up there, like you had said, and force that testimony. Other type is confidential marital communications. Is communication made between spouses while they're married, and that's privileged if the communication was made in reliance on this confidential nature of marriage, right? A lot of stuff, I know you're married, I'm married, that we say to each other in kind of the space where you presume that the conversations you're having are confidential. This applies to both civil and criminal cases.

Also what this means is this, you also had made a comment about who holds the privilege. Well, this means that a party has the privilege to prevent the other from testifying, and then and they can also refuse to testify. It can work in both ways. And we'll talk about that as we go through the answer choices. That sound okay?

0:05:48 Thomas: Oh, wow. Oh, sure.

0:06:33 Thomas: And it's Carmela. You were, you were so close. Well done. I had to look it up. I didn't remember.

0:06:35 Heather: Thank you. Well, you know that there's someone out there listening going, it's Carmela. It's Carmella.

0:06:41 Thomas: Yeah. So therefore we call Carmela Soprano to the, testify, to no, to the what, what do you say? To the stand. Yeah, that's right. I don't know why I blanked mid sentence, joke.

0:06:46 Heather: To the witness stand. That's okay. It's one of those days. It Yes, because the privilege ends upon divorce. Right. And you eliminated this pretty quickly, right? And you were saying that it doesn't make sense, right. You would be happy to know that your reasoning and logic does make sense even though this answer choice does not. Yeah, you're right on. I was so glad to hear you say that. Privilege survives marriage even into divorce. So this answer to choice is technically an incorrect answer. You have

0:07:00 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, Wow. They should make that part of the vows to have and to hold. But even if we divorce, our privilege will still apply. Yeah is

0:07:24 Heather: To stay silent. So for example, if the way this would work is, this way, if Patty was trying to introduce this statement in a case against another defendant, right, Dan would be able to assert the privilege. So he would be able to stop Patty from testifying about what he said. And then therefore, in that instance, the statement would, may be inadmissible, that's how, how that would work. Again, this answer choice incorrectly states the rule. And that's why it's wrong. So on, I was like, you couldn't hear me, but I was cheering. I was like, yes. Right. So B is out. And then we have C. No, because Patty has no motive to lie. And you eliminated this one as well, right?

0:08:00 Thomas: Like a typo. I don't know, what, what are they going for there? That I, I mean, going on, oh.

0:08:06 Heather: Yeah. And this is out of left field. And it was out of left field, this was the answer choice that was talking about another topic that gets tested pretty heavily, or other topics that get tested pretty heavily, in evidence, which are impeachment and character evidence. And the subtopics there are bias and motive. Those come up all the time. But that's not what we're talking about today. We're talking about Spousal Privilege, which is its other topic. And to your point, these are irrelevant as it relates to that. So C was also a wrong answer choice.

0:08:08 Thomas: Thank god well thank god for that. All right, second choice, bar exam. Still alive. Well,

0:08:39 Heather: So you were right to get it down to A and D. So these are, are our answer choices. These are the two best answer choices, so now we're going to try to see where we're at. So let's go to D. No, because the statements were confidential and made during the marriage. We know from our rule for the confidential marital communications that the communication has to be made between the spouses while they were married and made in reliance on the sanctity of marriage. It can apply to either criminal or civil cases. And other type of immunity is only for criminal proceedings.

0:09:10 Heather: A lot of times what happens with evidence questions is that we'd like to identify whether the fact pattern is discussing a criminal or a civil case to help narrow the rules. So with this case, do we think a custody battle is criminal or do we think it's civil?

0:09:24 Thomas: It sure isn't civil, because they're arguing, no, it's, yeah, it's so interesting.

0:09:30 Heather: Exactly. And so that, what that does is that removes the spousal testimonial immunity rule. And that puts us squarely in the confidential marital communications rule. So that helps us to kind of narrow our focus right away, right? And we're trying to figure out now, since we know that the confidential marital communications rule applies, now we've got to walk through to see whether or not it does apply in this context, to see whether or not the statements are admissible. We know that it's a civil case.

And then the next question is whether the statement was made during the time they were married, or whether it was made before or after. We look at the fact pattern, and it said the statements were made by Dan before the divorce. We know they are made during the marriage. All right. And then we also look to see whether it's likely that it was made kind of with this confidential nature of marriage kind of involved. And we see there's no facts to suggest that it wasn't, right?

He's kind of telling something personal, that he didn't feel he could properly care for the dogs himself. It's pretty personal and there's no facts to suggest otherwise. So it falls squarely in this rule of confidential marital communications. And what that means, means, is that the statement is likely inadmissible, right? D, no, because the statements were confidential and made during the marriage. Then we've got D, and then we're also got A. And because this is a multiple choice question, like a bar exam question, we want to make sure that we review A anyway. And because part of what makes bar exam questions hard is because they usually do things like test exceptions to the rule, right, we've gotta see whether or not there's any exceptions that apply, and then we'll go from there. It just, as it so happens, there are three exceptions that imply,

0:11:02 Thomas: Dog exception.

0:11:03 Heather: And it's like, there's a barking noise that comes up. Yeah. Um, and these exceptions are when spouses can testify based on what was said during the marriage. One of them is that in criminal prosecutions where one spouse is charged with a crime against the other, or when one spouse was charged with the crime against the children.

0:11:03 Thomas: Yeah. Makes

0:11:25 Heather: Since we know this is not a criminal prosecution, we can eliminate this. We know it doesn't apply. Got another one when there are other people around. So when the statement's made and there's other people round, there are no facts to suggest that there were other people, there are people around, right? And it also makes sense, right? So if you have this rule that relies on this confidential nature of marriage, but you're saying it at a dinner party, and it kind of makes sense that a statement would then become

0:11:24 Thomas: Sense. All right. All The dogs were listening thing. Finally, we're gonna get them on the stand. I knew it. Okay. Yeah.

0:11:58 Heather: Admissible, right? Exactly.

0:11:59 Thomas: Like How, uh, it's not um-client privilege if you have a bunch of other people in the room too. Oh.

0:12:03 Heather: And you had made a statement earlier about something that you had said to Lydia, and then you also had shared publicly, it's this, that falls exactly in the same line here. If you had just shared it with her, that's one thing, but once that gets shared a little bit more publicly, the same idea. Help?

0:12:19 Thomas: Yes, but that had to do with also, I brought that up in the context of who can like waive a privilege, um, then I did say it's got to be probably different because it's not like Lydia was the other party in this, so that probably complicates it, but roll. Hey.

0:12:32 Heather: This one is out. So we've got two out of the three are out. And here's the last one. Yeah. In civil actions between spouses, some may be admissable, right?

0:12:41 Thomas: Oh, what? Maybe admissible now. Are we going to go on a whole new line of analysis? Do you have to like, geez, this is a complicated one.

0:12:52 Heather: Don't worry, we're not going to get too much in the weeds. And the reason I say may is, A, I'm a lawyer. And may is my favorite word, aside from it depends. But don't worry we won't get too into that. Here, we've got a civil action where Patty is suing Dan. That's And exactly where this exception falls, right? And the civil action between spouses. What that means is that what Dan told Patty during the time that they were married, that means that that is now admissible because falls under the exception and the privilege no longer applies. That means that our correct answer is A and our incorrect answer is D. another one for you. Yes

0:12:56 Thomas: Yeah yep wow that is crazy. You know, I was all ready for a moment there that, what a perfect, I can't believe how that was, amazing how you led us down that path. I was all ready to be like, see, everyone yelling at me, it's not always your first instinct, stop telling me that, and then it's, my first instinct was right. That's what happened.

0:13:46 Thomas: I'd like to apologize. But what's also really cool is that I actually think I pretty much got there exactly the same way, but without knowing any of that. Because it was like, in the end, I kind of considered everything you said pretty much in so many words, because I talked about the Lydia thing and the like, how that worked. And then it was like, yeah, but in a divorce proceeding, what the hell else are you going to do? And like, so I think I got there in exactly the way you did. This was the coolest T3B ever. Illustrated what the whole original concept was, was like can I just get there by trying to reason through like what seems fair, you know, or what seems to make sense. And the answer is just always, but, but sometimes, you know, 63 % of the time it works every time.

0:13:46 Heather: Trust your gut yeah

0:14:32 Thomas: Shoot. With that answer correct, I am now 20 of 31, and it's 64.52, so creeping up in the world. And can't, so remind me, what was this score that you were saying was like a target? I think you mentioned at one point, but should be, I shooting for, I mean, 100, but but like short of that. Oh, across the board of like all the topics or. OK, OK, well, shoot, I'm right there, right on the bubble. Someone let me take the bar, please. Right. It's time to announce the winners for this week's T3BE on reddit.com/r/openargs. We have a really comprehensive one that just pretty much nailed every aspect. So I pretty much had to go with it, that is Emily NGE, or maybe Emmeline, I don't know. Emmeline or maybe Emmeline GE. Impossible to know, no, Emil Inge. Way, they say, "I agree with Thomas's process of elimination.

Think the answer is A. Simply has to be possible for divorcees to testify as to what the other party and did during the relationship when they are adversaries in a proceeding. For example, Amber Heard v. Johnny Depp contained quite a bit of testimony from both parties the other said, as far as I know. I think Thomas may be overlooking a subtle difference between a privilege being waived versus not applying.

Most of Thomas's discussion concerned who holds the privilege, who may waive it, and how it may be waived. However, however, answer A posits that the privilege does not apply. So I'm guessing he's wrong about why it is correct. I also don't think it matters that the proceeding is civil, not criminal. The privilege does not have anything to do with incrimination. It's about confidentiality. Yeah, with attorney -client privilege, I would think it also applies in civil cases.

My guess is that the privilege protects against intrusion of third parties upon the expected privacy in marriage, as such it may be that the privilege does not apply when there's no third party because the spouses are adversaries." Well, Emily, I think you nailed it, I think it just grabbed every single nuance there, so I had to, I say Emily again, I don't know for sure that that's your name, but Emily Inch, yeah, no, I think, I think, yeah, you're totally right to note that my discussion was about who holds the privilege and who may waive it and all that.

The end, I think I chose A because for similar reasons, it was like you have to be able to testify against your spouse in that way in a divorce proceeding. Otherwise, what would it be? So I think in the end, I used that reasoning, but I did not highlight it and articulate it as well, or even at all, compared to how you did. So, excellent answer, A plus, nailed every aspect of it, well done.

Now we'll hop on over to patreon.com/law for that winner, for our patron winner, and we'll go with Kate from Seattle. "I'm pretty sure it's A. Unfortunately, I was once in a situation that necessitated me researching spousal privilege. I remember reading that is when one spouse is suing the other, e.g. divorce. Also, I don't know where Dan got his understanding of spousal, but doesn't it typically refer to spouses not being compelled to testify against one another?

I don't recall there being any cone of silence laws regarding any statements made during the course of a marriage. This whole question is an attractive distractor if you ask me." Well, Kate, sad I'm to say, I think you might be wrong about that one. There is that spousial privilege when it comes to the, don't know about cone of silence exactly, but when it comes to the private conversation thingy that Heather told us about, as know, it is answer A. And as the excellent Redditor said, it's pretty much the reasoning is that they've got it. Who else would testify but one of the spouses against each other in a divorce proceeding? So there you go, Cave from Seattle, our big patron winner. Everyone, so much for playing. Please continue to play as we get our new question for this week after this break.

0:14:49 Heather: When you study for the bar you want to be shooting for uh 65 across the board yeah you're

0:18:13 Thomas: Show is brought to you by Factor. Hey, it's another one that I get to say I was a customer of before they were a sponsor. If you've listened to me for a long time, you know I love help with meals. We needs all the help with meal we can get. Such amazing help with meals is Factor! Now, while yes, these are meals that you microwave, I want to make make something very clear. These are not frozen boring, ordinary microwave meals. These Are fresh, never frozen meals.

Chef crafted, approved. Throw them in the microwave and then you plate them because this This is restaurant quality stuff, and these are ready in just two minutes. So no matter how busy you are, you'll always have time to enjoy nutritious, great tasting meals. Some of my favorite parts. Different meals, 60 60 add -ons means you'll always have new flavors to explore. The kitchen time is at a minimum, which again, for me and my life, I really need that time savings.

So head to factormeals.com/opening50 and use code opening50 to get 50% off your first box plus 20%. Off your next month. Code opening50 at factormeals.com/opening50. To get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next month. While your subscription is active. More time. Head to factormeals.com/opening50.

0:19:32 Thomas: Show is brought to you by Bespoke Post. Your summer just got a heck of a lot more awesome thanks to Bespoke Post and their all -new premium lineup of Box of Awesome collections. If there wasn't already enough cool gear in each box, with Box of awesome premium, they're doubling the fresh finds. Doesn't love getting really cool stuff in the mail? Addicted to it. It's why I am running a cardboard factory in my spare time. Time.

Of my favorite things I've gotten from the box of awesome is this sling bag. Lydia's always had one of these. She's like a belt bag type thing. It's great, especially for people who aren't as pocketedly privileged as others. Used to be able to have an excuse to have Lydia carry my sunglasses, just pop it in that bag she has. Now that I have have my own cool version. Have to carry my own sunglasses, but that's okay. Equality.

Now with this premium box, I'm really excited about double the amount of awesome. To get started, take the quiz at boxofawesome.com. Your answers will help them pick the right box of awesome for you. It is free to join, and items every month across a ton of different categories. When you become a member, you'll have access to stellar discounts across tons of products. % off or more sometimes.

With 90 % of everything that comes in your Box of awesome is from a small up and coming brand. Free to sign up and you can skip a month or cancel any time. Get a free mystery gift with your first monthly shipment when When you sign up at box of awesome .com and enter the code opening at checkout, that's box of Awesome .com code opening for a free mystery gift with your first monthly shipment box of Awesome. Dot com code opening.

0:21:07 Thomas: Right, Heather, back at feeling good on, and I'm starting a new streak, new mini little streak here, and maybe I can keep it going. So let's have question 36.

0:21:17 Heather: Well Tommy Tennant rented a house in a residential neighborhood owned by Larry Landlord before Tommy signed the monthly lease. I don't know. That's pretty good.

0:21:19 Thomas: What Are The odds They Should have Done It the other Way, I just like messed with you, it's not, it's just a coincidence their names were, that is that, yeah, oh.

0:21:33 Heather: He Before Tommy signed his monthly lease, he mentioned to Larry that the house's hot water heater was broken and only pumping out cold water. A first-year law student taking property, Tommy knew that the the local housing code required a landlord to provide residential tenants with hot water for the tenant's health and safety. Responded by pointing to the lease provision that made Tommy responsible for repairs and providing his own hot water. Signed the lease and moved into the house. Waiting a reasonable amount of time for Larry to fix the hot water heater, Tommy started paying his monthly rent into an escrow account. Demanded that Tommy pay all the rent directly to him. After Larry did not receive any rental payments for six months, he filed an action to evict Tommy from the house. Larry succeed in his eviction action against Tommy? No, because Larry has violated the implied warranty of habitability.

0:22:23 Heather: No, because Larry's actions constitute a constructive eviction. C. Yes, because Tommy knowingly accepted the duty to repair the house, or D, yes, because Tommy knowingly waived the implied warranty of habitability. Oh.

0:22:37 Thomas: Man, I kind of remember, I think I've had, whoo, this is reaching way back in my T3BE times, but I do remember this implied warrant of habitability. Already, right off the bat, I think that's perhaps not something you can waive. And, I hope it's not, because that would just create the, you of like the slum situation where it's like, well, you can waave. It's sort of like if a kid waives their right to not work in a coal mine. It is like, let's not have that ability to waive that. Think it might be that. But, that is just my first memory. But now, as as I've found the last few times, I guess my first instinct is something to trust. So I'll keep that in my pocket here. All right. Tommy Tennant, related to David Tennant. Completely coincidental about the name. So let's see. So rented a house. Landlord sounds like a real piece of work. A long line of landlords.

0:23:29 Thomas: Tommy for some reason mentions that the house's hot water heater was broken and only pumping out cold water. How does he know? I don't know, I guess just tested it before renting. As a first year law student taking property, oh, I love that part. I can't, I, I think I didn't catch that in real time. Cause that's hilarious. Hot water, I think is one of those things where is part of habitability.

You can't, you can't just say no hot water, but hey, the house is there, you're fine, like, P, I think that's considered something that you do need, um, good reason, though. So it's like, he's already started renting it. And then Larry is like, ha, the lease says that you are responsible for repairs and providing your own hot water. I love the wording of that. Like, yeah, you can bring it to the house, you just have to B -Y -O hot water.

Tommy sign the lease and move into the house, well, that seems weird. Waiting a reasonable amount of time for Larry, landlord, to fix the water heater, he started paying his monthly rent into an escrow account, that's interesting. We got a dispute here is, is like, you got to fix this thing, man. Larry's like, no, you gotta fix this thing, men. And so Tommy is sticking to his guns as a first year law student.

It's like, nope, I'm going to start paying rent, but into an escrow account. Then Larry's like, no, man, you owe me, pay that directly to me. So after they did that for six months, and then he files action to evict Tommy from the house. So the key question seems to be, can sign away that warranty of habitability, or can you, can you agree that like you are responsible for repairs?

That's not the key, because break, it's not like Tommy broke it or broke under Tommy's watch, it was already, when you're renting a house, I think the implied warranty of habbitability is that, okay, you're going to be able to live there, it's not, you know, it's livable, and the hot water heater not working is part of that. Now, does it complicate things that Tommy identified that before signing the lease?

Yeah, I don't know, I don't, I don't think that matters, because you can't sign a lease and be responsible for repairs and then be like, so now you gotta fix the whole house, is broken, you gotta fixed it, because even though you moved in while it was broken. Like, I don't, I think that like, this is a lot of, I, know, I'm siding with Tommy. He's first year law student, I think there's hope for him.

He may, there's hope that he picks a different profession, becomes a better person. But, in the meantime, I'm glad he at least has this elementary knowledge of the law. But I also feel like this test, this exam wouldn't want us to trust the first year law opinion. Anyway, so will Larry be able to evict Tommy? I think my, so my instinct is that Larry did actually have to fix this before Tommy moved in.

Don't think that the tenant should have to, the fixed water heater just because they signed the lease. Like it was already broken. It's, it's sort of like Tommy is assuming that Larry, landlord's, going to follow the law and repair the water heater. I don't think that that meant that Tommy, like, signed away that right or something. Answers are tricky. "Will succeed in his eviction action against Tommy? No, because Larry has violated the implied warranty of habitability." A big, strong contender for me.

"No, because Harry's actions constitute a constructive eviction." Okay, so that, I think that's the attractive distractor, because, be true, but I don't think that's important, really. I think, like, , what' s more important is the, that this needed to be fixed to begin with, not the fact, like the ongoing not fixing of it. It is a constructive eviction, I think, could be, but I, s going to lose the eviction action.

I think that's, like, that's an attractive distractor, that's like, if I'm reading this right, I think that's true but not correct, or whatever, like we've talked about. C, "Yes, because Tommy knowingly accepted the duty to repair the house." So that's possible. Or D, "Yes, because Tommy knowingly waived the implied warranty of habitability." That's, so that's also, okay, I'm going to go with my first instinct, though. Don't think you can waive that. I'm gonna hope, I'm a hope for a better world.

Don't know that this is the law, but I don't think you should be able to waive the implied warranty of habitability. There are certain things where it's like, even if it still shouldn't be legal, kind of thing, think that's one of those things. It just should be, because how humans work and how capitalism works, that just means you'd have a bunch of Larry landlord assholes having just beat down uninhabitable places, but people with not enough money are forced to agree to live in them.

And maybe that is the world we live in, maybe that is a country we live in. I hope not. I think legally speaking, it's not, but that's often different than how reality works. But I'm going to say no to D. I'm just, I'm just feeling a pretty strong memory, or maybe it's just wistful thinking, that you shouldn't be able to waive that thing. So I would say that puts me between A and C. A was, is my strong first instinct answer, C, now do I want to complicate things and go against that and get it wrong, that's what I have to consider.

C, "Yes, because Tommy knowingly accepted the duty to repair the house." I, not the dumbest answer, because it's like, well, he knows that the hot water heater is broken, and then Larry's like, hey, look at, look at this, it says you need to repair stuff, and he signs it, and so there's certainly an argument, they're like, yeah, okay, but that, that seems like he agreed that he needs to repair it, but I just think the fact that it was broken before he even moved in, I, I just think it's a, I think, uh, I think, I think Larry loser, I feel like Trump with all these like

0:29:09 Thomas: Crooked Larry landlord needed to fix the hot water heater before moving in, I just, just think that's how that works. I'm between A and C, I'm going final answer A. Right. If you would like to do this, if you'd to play it along, you know, how to go to reddit.com/r/openargs. That's the most fun place for everyone to play. Oh, but the truly best place is patreon.com/law on the post for this episode. And of course, I'll pick a winner from each. If you're a patron, I think you should do both, because you have a better chance of winning on Patreon, but also the Reddit can track your score, which is super fun. All right, well, thanks for another week of T3BE, Heather. I'm excited to find out the answer to this one next week.

0:29:48 Heather: Too, and we'll be finding out whether Larry landlord is a loser or whether he's a Larry winner and

0:29:58 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:30:07 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our new patrons at patreon.com/law. I say new in quotes, but we are catching up to current time at a rapid clip. About a couple more weeks. We'll be caught up right now. We're in late May. So thank you so much to Courtney Hall, Brian McGowan, Skeptic Prime, Emmanuel Doris, Brandon Carroll, Natasha Bright, Chris Brainerd, Nathan Anderson, The Hemoth Jr., Alfield, you did last summer and it was so dreamy creamy.

0:30:40 Thomas: Daniel Hewitt, Sarah Gee, Turner Coates, I am even faster at sex and willing to prove it on demand. Okay. Andrew Osichuk, Kettle Myland. Oh, darn it. I don't know why it brings in the characters weird on that. It's like a, the paragraph symbol and like a check mark. Sorry about that. Uh, Malland, maybe. I think based on your email. Kettle Malland.

0:31:04 Thomas: Jared Rabinovitz, Jet the Brash, H. Melissa Mather, Maddie Hausman, Bill Precci, Negget, Geyer, Lisa Redmond, Merida Johnsteth, Ted Wilson, Marsha Werner, Patrick and Travis Redfield. You so much to the newish patrons. I said last week, if I haven't seen them, they're new to me and made this thing happen. Cannot emphasize that enough. And it's getting a little sad that I'm catching up to current day. This segment will be much shorter, but that's okay because we still have our Hall of Famers, all time greats, at patreon.com/law. These are the brilliant folks, pledge at least that $5 tier and above for at least a month. And we're on the second quartile, August. Of We begin with Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. Just a caveman. Is dish best served with cold hamburgers. Nick Fish, a negative phenomenon. Swipe is gone, but that's what I call any swipe typing method on my phone because it's fast at text. You gotta fight for your right to ex parte. J. Sank, E.T., Terry Cannon, no relation.

Book recommendation, Rest is Resistance, a manifesto by Tricia Hersey. Fight capitalism and white supremacy through naps. Oh my, jeez, sold and sold. I didn't know I've been fighting it all this time. Maybe I haven't been napping right, though. I'll have to check out the book to find out. Oh, a Chicago live show. You bring the law and I'll bring baptized Italian beefs. Oh, man, I want to do that so badly. Maybe, maybe. Oh great, now I have to go back to changing my name every month.

I'm Fast At Guilty, Thomas Freeman, and And Cajan Killa. Ah, brilliant. You folks are amazing. I love you Hall of Famers so much. Thank you for making the show happen. Can never thank you enough. And that's the show. Loving T3BE, learning so much, and by the way, free to send me an email or a message or something. If you pass the bar, I hear from people from time to time who listen to T3B and use it to help pass the bar, and I love that.

That's so nice. I mean, I could shout you out or something, too. Think that's like happening now, or maybe it either you already took it all or you've taken some of it. Either way, good luck either now or in the past. So much for listening. Can't wait for Rapid Response Friday. See you then.

0:33:16 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.

0:33:34 Heather: Okay. It's one of those days. It is.

0:33:42 Thomas: It's a day.

0:33:44 Heather: All

0:33:45 Thomas: Know, when you have a bigger screen, you got columns on your spreadsheet and you're using widths that are just irresponsible, you know, but you don't even notice because you're just like, yeah, I got all the, I I could ever need.