OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE40

Transcript

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

0:00:00 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:00:08 Clip: I just know that you were going to kick that bar's butt out of here, you know? Come in here with a skull full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer.

0:00:31 Clip: My staff has flunked the bar exams six times.

0:00:36 Clip: You graduated from law school six years ago. What have you been doing since? Studying for the bar.

0:00:47 Thomas: Hello and Welcome to Opening arguments. It is Thomas Takes the Bar Exam episode 40. Thomas, that's the bar exam. That of course means we'll have the answer to question 39, last week's question. And then that brand new question 40. We'll get the winners. We'll get the patron shout outs, all the good stuff. Hey, just a reminder, check out the OA Instagram, that's at open args pod. Also got some TikTok going, that's at serious pod. And as you're listening, it's possible I've done some TikToking about the debate that has not started yet as of my recording. If you'd like to follow that, go to at serious pod on TikTok. I think we're probably possibly reposting stuff, and that's how everything works. Everything is reposts from other social media, so I'm sure you'll find it somewhere. OpenArgspod for Insta and TikTok and all that good stuff. Olivia really does put a ton of work into that OA Instagram, so I strongly encourage everyone to check it out. It's really fun, like Easter egg type stuff that along with the episodes, and we're going to be expanding that out all the time. So once again, Instagram at open args pod. Right. After this break, we'll get on over to Heather, our highly trained professional bar tutor, going to help us learn how to pass the bar exam. You can avoid this break at patreon.com/law. Thanks so much to the supporters and get that ad-free feed. And

0:02:15 Thomas: Right, Heather, it's time for the answer to question 39. This is a weird one about someone like accidentally completing a sale of something because someone grabbed something and threw money at them. Remind us what this question was.

0:02:29 Heather: This was our clerk's inspired question, um, the olds like me, um what the characters are in the new Jersey, uh Yeah, this Is our friend Dante working at a Quick Stop, uh, his friend or a person Randall comes in to try to buy beer, and the implication is that Randall's underage, and when Dante turns his back, Randall grabs the beer and kind of runs out. And we know that the law in New Jersey from the question says that it's a misdemeanor to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21, and the question asks us that if Dante's prosecuted for violating the law, what's his best defense? So we're trying to figure out how we can essentially get Dante a not guilty verdict here with it. Uh, you had said right away that you thought that this was a criminal law question, what was your tip off that this was a criminal law question? Yeah.

0:02:33 Thomas: I have seen Clerks but it's been a long time, I don't remember it that well. Is this in Clerks? Okay. Okay ah gotcha Yeah, it's Just the criminal law part, I think I don't

0:03:28 Heather: Exactly, anytime you get, um, call of the question that says prosecution or violating the law, that's always a really big red flag to say, hey, you're in the criminal law land. And, uh, before we narrow it down to our sub topic, we'll just talk a little bit about some principles for criminal law. A fun fact is that criminal law has a couple of general principles that are pretty much contained in every crime. Contain a couple things, an act or an actus reus, a mental state or a mens rea, a concurrence of the two, and a causation that links the defendant's conduct to the harm. So usually when we're in a criminal law question, they usually have to contain kind of those components in order for a defendant to be found guilty. So, um, what we have here is, I'll just help everyone along, we've got a question that's focusing a little bit on the mens rea or the mental state or the guilty mind element of Why not? Tell me why not.

0:04:26 Thomas: Like that well Because it seems pretty irrelevant to me, so that's a, that's a sign that, uh, maybe, uh, misunderstanding the question, we'll see. Well, because he didn't sell it to him, like, because I feel like the mens rea stuff would be like, yeah, I knew he was under 21, and I did it anyway. But it's like, that all doesn't seem like it matters here.

0:04:51 Heather: So part of what's really important is anytime you get a criminal law question and it gives you a statute, one of the first things you want to do is take a peek at the statute and see what's in it. Tell me a little bit why you think the mens rea element does or doesn't matter as it relates to a law that's in the fact pattern.

0:05:07 Thomas: Well, it is a misdemeanor to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21. Well, yeah, doesn't sound like intent matters. Maybe I was just going based on, like, intuition about how this normally works. But I don't think it's a great excuse if you don't know they're 21. I think, especially in, I don't know if it varies by state, but I think you just have to verify that they're above 21. So I felt like that wasn't really what it was going to turn on, whether or not the person, whether or not Dante had like mens rea on this.

0:05:38 Heather: And I'm going to tell you why. I said, we usually have that mental, we usually don't have to have a guilty mind in order to find someone guilty of a crime, right, and that makes sense. We've got a whole bunch of different types of crimes and mental states that require like specific intent and general intent crimes and that sort of thing, malice crimes, um, we've got an exception, and we've an exception that doesn't require a mental state in order to find someone guilty of a crime, and those are strict liability crimes that The act of doing it makes it illegal, so when you commit the crime it's a violation of the law and there's no mens rea, only the act is required. So I'll give you an example, we have some statutory and regulatory offenses where that's the case. So let's say, for example, you sell a food item without an expiration date, it doesn't matter, uh, if you meant, let's say you're a clerk and you forgot to stamp it with the expiration date, but you just forgot because you're busy, doesn't matter. Let's say the food item was sold, it didn't have the expiration date, there's a violation of the law, right?

0:06:07 Thomas: Gotcha. Right. Oh,

0:06:39 Heather: We've got a group of moral offenses, these come up quite a bit, bigamy is one of them. If you marry a person while you're married to someone else, that's a violation of the law, right? Doesn't mean that you, whoops, you forgot to divorce, doesn't matter, hiding

0:06:51 Thomas: Really? Really? Because I feel like what if there's all those stories of like, well, I thought my wife was washed away at sea, but then it turns out she's somehow survived. And then that's like, that'd be a crime, I guess, to remarry. That's, yeah, silly.

0:07:06 Heather: Somewhere yeah This is, once you apply, apply a little bit earlier, it's state by state, right, when California might have a different rule than Iowa let's Say, I'm sorry, listen, I went through a couple of my, yeah Exactly, I'm just, the act of doing it, right, switch your point a little bit earlier, there's no mens rea element in here, and that's a lot of times too what happens, is we're looking for that as we're going, you're going through the fact pattern and the statute that it gives us. The other thing I'll mention here is that goal here, we also look at the call of the question to see whether or not we can help our friend, like what is the call of the question asking, um, a lot of times with these types of questions it's asking us to help our friend get a not guilty verdict. So we're saying, um, where's our friend Dante, what's his best defense, it's saying, hey, the one answer choice that's going to get our friend to the not guilty verdict, and it's very likely that those three other ones are going to give him the guilty verdict which we don't want. So we usually have about three guilties and one not guilty, and we're looking for that one not guilty verdict. And with that in mind, we'll go through those answer choices. So you had identified D as a bad answer choice, so tell me a little bit about that, D, that Dante was not the owner but he was only an hourly employee, so tell me why you eliminated, exactly

0:07:16 Thomas: Utah. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't see how that would. I guess the reasoning would be like the business itself kind of sold the alcohol. But it's like the owner could be across the world, and the owner could have a policy of 100% never do this. And then the employee did it. It just didn't seem like that was a good one to me. The person Dante is the person who was there and would have been, you know, the perpetrator.

0:08:43 Heather: And this answer choice is trying to get, to give it vicarious liability, right, which is holding another person liable for an act committed by someone else, which, more specifically, in the employment context is trying to hold an employer liable for something that an employee does, because that's what happens when you're the employer, that when your employee does something within the scope of their employment the employer can be held liable for that. So this is really about blame shifting, and this doesn't really fully get our friend Dante that not guilty verdict that we're looking for.

0:09:13 Heather: And that's part of why this answer choice is wrong, so you will wait to eliminate it it's

0:09:15 Thomas: It's like you're the puppet. No, me no puppet. You puppet. Stop it.

0:09:20 Heather: Like the finger, it's like, the, yeah I'm

0:09:21 Thomas: Doesn't work. It works sometimes, but not here. It works in 2016. No, you know, presidential politics, but not here, so

0:09:27 Heather: Not here, not with our friends in New Jersey. And we have B, Dante did not know that Randall was a minor, so tell me a little bit more why B, you would need B, you're

0:09:37 Thomas: I think that it, for one, it doesn't matter, like you've already covered, but my reasoning at the time was like it just also didn't feel like that was what it turned on, like they did ask for the driver's license and presumably wasn't going to sell the beer if, if Randall was a minor. And so it just seems weird to say, like, logically speaking, the defense wouldn't be, oh, I didn't know, because that almost admits you did it or something, it was like, ah, I did not know that they were under the age of 21, it does not seem as directly, like, doesn't seem like the best defense, I guess, I don't know, right,

0:10:09 Heather: Absolutely right, and you're also right in the sense that it, it's irrelevant, right, because we still presume that he sold it anyway, and we still end up with that guilty, not verdict, and again, to your point, the law, the law in the fact pattern, doesn't have a knowledge element. If it did, it would say in New Jersey it's a misdemeanor to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21, exactly

0:10:24 Thomas: Or like knowingly sell alcohol or something.

0:10:30 Heather: Right, but it doesn't have that in there, so, and that's part of how we eliminate answer choice B. So you're right to get it down, uh, to A and C, so tell me a little bit about your thinking, or remind us about your thinking, when it came down to A and C

0:10:43 Thomas: Like, A, I think it is just the second best one, but it is still not amazing. I think it would, I mean, I, yeah, it's like the defense would be like, oh, I wasn't going to sell it to them if, you know, that's why I asked for the license. They didn't give it. Whereas C, I think, is a little more direct on that. Like, I guess A could be it, but I feel like C is more directly like, hey, I didn't sell it. Like, to my very first point was, had they just run out with the beer, no one, we wouldn't be here, nobody in the world would prosecute. But the fact that they threw money, like, that somehow makes Dante more culpable, just because they threw some money there, that doesn't, more to the point, this didn't happen, like that feels the most like direct answer to me

0:11:29 Heather: And you're absolutely right, because especially looking at A, where it says Dante asked for Randall's driver's license, that still doesn't help Dante at all in terms of trying to get that not guilty verdict. Because what does him asking for the driver's license have to do with him selling alcohol? Does that act as a defense? It's him just saying, well, but I asked for a driver's license, but the law says that if you sold it, you committed a violation.

0:11:55 Heather: And, well, but I ask for the, we're still trying to get at, well, what's the thing that's

0:11:55 Thomas: It's almost like yeah Okay, but you could have seen the driver's license and then still sold it, like, only way I was worried is like if that was somehow like the first step of saying it didn't happen, because that was the thing, I was just kind of worried if it was going to trick me in some way that way. But yeah, short of tricks, it makes sense.

0:12:15 Heather: And there's no tricks, right, and that's part of how A is wrong too, because let's say he even saw the driver's license, or he asked for it, he saw it, still, if he sells, we're still in that situation where, exactly, and that is how C ends up being the right answer, and you were right to say, right, what is his best defense, he didn't sell it, the law says you sell you sell, you're guilty you don't sell your nut that's

0:12:35 Thomas: It says sell. I know, sell. It said sell. I don't sell. I didn't sell, most direct.

0:12:41 Heather: Exactly, so C is the right answer, and you're going to get on a streak

0:12:46 Thomas: Wow. Yeah, I think you've thrown me easy ones that would make me feel better. I think the best defense would have been, my name's not Dante, or something. That would have been funny. I'm not even, so Dante R works here, but there's also a Dante M, it's two different people. No. Okay. So C is the final and correct answer. Yay. Rejoice. There was much rejoicing. And yeah, two question streak, to feel a little better about it, but that seemed really easy, but that's just me. Let's find out though, who our big winners are. And maybe it also seemed very easy to them or not. We'll, we'll see. We're going to have to congratulate our big winners. Let's just say the big loser is me. I have seen Clerks, it's been a very long time, like I'm talking like 20 years, it's been a while. So I didn't remember any of this. I do remember liking it, but I, but I, uh, I don't remember. Many of you on both Patreon and Reddit pointed out that I was missing that reference, which is, which is good, I'm glad you did. And you all had a lot of fun with each other over it. And so many answers were clearly based on this reference that I did not get. So it's going to be hard for me to pick the right winner, but I will do my best. Many good ones. So we go first to reddit.com/r/openargs and Charles Dickens, a box, one of my favorites. A sale requires offer and acceptance. Dante never agreed to sell the beer to Randall and did not accept Randall's offer of cash. Therefore, there was no sale. Randall stole the beer for which Dante cannot be prosecuted. Furthermore, neither witness Jay nor witness Silent Bob would ever agree to testify against either party. The state has no case. And honestly, since I don't know the reference, although I do recognize, of course, some of those characters, I went with that one because it was the most upvoted on Reddit. So, you know, upvote the ones you like, and that's a little bit of meritocracy there for you. Charles Dickens, a box, well done. I think you're a second time winner at least, if not third. Now we go over to patreon.com/law. James says, secret answer E, Dante isn't even supposed to be here today, which, David Back, Spino Breaker says, Thomas, this is the winner, I'm sorry to everyone else. So there you go, I assume that's the best reference. Also had Imaginary Monster who said, C, Dante did not complete the transaction of sale. Dante was also mentally distracted because the lock on the convenience store shutters was stuffed with gum and he was not supposed to be there that day.

0:15:15 Thomas: For a non-reference answer, we go to Peter Olson, who says, this is essentially the same situation as if Randall snuck into the store, took a beer and left money on the shelf where the beer was. The answer is C, because Dante didn't perform the transaction of selling the beer to Randall. So I think I, along with everybody else, got this one, it's pretty easy. Uh, the questions are easy, sometimes they are not easy, we'll see if, uh, if next question is anywhere near as easy as this, I feel like it won't be, but congrats to the big winners, thanks so much for playing along. When it's a reference I get, I'm sure I will really enjoy that same level of inside jokery.

0:15:51 Thomas: Now Right, Heather. Well, I think you gave me an easy one there. So let's see if question 40, uh, maybe, maybe it's any harder. Let's find out.

0:16:03 Heather: Plaintiff Paul sues Dale, defendant, for breach of contract involving the sale of 50 handmade surfboards, alleging that Dale improperly rejected a shipment surfboards.

0:16:11 Thomas: We need to look into the defendant, crime family. You know, it's like the, they all share a name and they're all doing weird stuff and then getting sued for it. It's like The Corleones, you know, the defense.

0:16:23 Heather: Dale Dale defends this suit by introducing evidence that the shipment to his business was of only 15 surfboards, which he rejected. Paul introduced part of an email he sent to Dale the day after the contract was signed, stating that there was a production problem which would slightly delay Paul's acquisition of all 50 surfboards. How dare he?

0:16:46 Thomas: I just already know this is one of those effing contract ones that I'm going to not remember the exact rule. Okay. Okay.

0:16:52 Heather: Dale then offers evidence that another part of the email reads, quote, there is no obligation to receive any surfboards unless they are delivered in one lot of 50 handmade surfboards, end quote. Paul objects to this evidence, How is the court likely to rule? A. Dale failed to object to the email and waived any right to introduce any other part of it.

0:17:07 Thomas: Wait a minute.

0:17:21 Heather: B. Dale is entitled to introduce evidence of any part of the transaction necessary to make it understood.

0:17:28 Heather: C. Dale's evidence is inadmissible hearsay. Or D. Dale's evidence is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule, and

0:17:37 Thomas: Okay. So a curveball here. Wipeout, you know, I'll have to say that after I get it wrong, actually, save that one. Okay, so here I thought it was a contract question, it's actually an evidence question, unless it's both, if there are certain special rules of evidence around contracts, I dunno, maybe. We got Paul plaintiff, Dale defendant, breach of contract, so, okay, it says Dale defends the suit. So, if Paul is suing Dale for breach of contract, because he didn't accept just the 15 surfboards, I guess. And so, Dale's like, nuh-uh, here's evidence, evidence, well, first off, he says, here's evidence that the shipment was of only 15 surfboards, and I guess that evidence is fine. And then, Paul introduces part of an email he sent to Dale the day after the contract was signed, stating that there was a production problem which would slightly delay the 50 surfboards, okay, Dale then offers evidence of another part of the email. OK, so I guess the critical question here is going to be this like partial email thing. Now, I seem to remember there's some sort of full thingy, like if there's an email, I think you just are supposed to introduce all of it or none of it, I think. And is that the parol evidence rule? I don't know, the parol evidence rule, sucks because I feel like I definitely know what the parol evidence rule is, but I'm drawing a complete blank, parol evidence. Because there's like the best evidence rule, I don't think it's really that, parol evidence rule is the thing I'm talking about, like, I think you're not supposed to admit only a partial thing, because you want like the full context of at least whatever the thing is. But Paul introduces it and then Dale, it doesn't say that there's any objection or whatever, and then Dale offers another part of the email which says there's no obligation to receive any surfboards unless they are delivered in one lot of 50 handmade surfboards, and then it's saying if Paul objects to this evidence, what, so Paul introduces part of the email he sent to Dale, then offers evidence that another part, isn't it just him introducing the email? I don't, evidence that another part of the email. What is that, like a screen? Like someone took a picture over someone's shoulder that had part of the... Why would you offer evidence that another part of the email reads? Just get the email there, I don't understand. So now if Paul is objecting, presumably under some sort of partial evidence thing, is there a partial evidence rule? No, man, is it parol? Gosh, dang it, I know what that means, parol evidence rule, can't remember. Okay. How is the court likely to rule if Paul objects? Dale failed to object to the email and waived any right to introduce any other part of it. Oh, wait a minute. Oh, at first that sounded silly, like why would failing to object to the email waive the right to introduce any other part of it. But then I'm thinking actually that might, that might be a strong answer because here's, here's what might be happening. Paul goes to introduce part of an email, I think what should happen is that Dale would be like, hey, you got to introduce the whole thing, you know, like, objection, introduce the whole thing, but because he didn't object, it's like that version of the email Paul's introducing becomes like, as far as the court's concerned, like that's that email, and so parol evidence rule might be that you don't introduce other parts of the same evidence, or it's something about the... Okay, if so, the way A could be true is Dale fails to object to the email and then that becomes, in the court's mind, that's like that email, like you've introduced this document, because I think the way, I think it works is when you're introducing evidence like this, it would be, you're supposed to do the best evidence of whatever the thing is. And it might be like a document. If you do partial and other side doesn't object, does that mean they waive the right to introduce any other part of it? And that, like, that might be true. Weirdly, I think A could be true, but we'll see. Okay. B, Dale is entitled to introduce evidence of any part of the transaction necessary to make it understood. So that's another, that sounds like a different principle entirely.

0:22:08 Thomas: True. Evidence of any part of the transaction necessary to make it understood. I can't, this seems like a really hard one. What I don't know, based on, you know, not having gone to law school, is, is that the kind of thing that would be an exception to this kind of thing, or would it be like, well, sure, B might be true, they're entitled to introduce any evidence as part of the transaction necessary to make it understood, but then that still has to follow all the normal evidence rules, and if this is a problem with the normal evidence rules, that B, their answer, doesn't let you get around that, like, doesn't allow Dale to introduce hearsay probably, like just inadmissible hearsay, let's say, you can't be like, well, it's evidence of any part of the transaction necessary to make it understood, or would that work, I don't know, is it some weird thing, now, now is that, are we in the situation where it's contracts and evidence, because, like, okay, but you've got a contract, and they, like, you don't have a written, it looks like they don't have a written out contract necessarily. Actually, doesn't parol evidence rule have to do with, like, having to, which parts of contracts have to be written out, or which, crap, is that what that is? Oh, this is killing me. Okay, it makes sense that a court wouldn't want this constant trying to introduce parts of sentences of email, you know, that would be weird, like, let's say you have a 10 page email for some reason, you're like, all right, we introduced this paragraph, and then the other side, but this paragraph, that's a bad way to do it, I do think courts want you to just, okay, here's the document, here's, like, it actually came up in my legal things where I was asking, like, what is the kind of the smallest unit of evidence, you know, is it a conversation, because in discovery, when you turn over all your stuff, it's like, well, how much of, like a lot of these, uh, you know, you have a chat thread with somebody that goes back years, and it's like, all right, well, this part's relevant, how do you decide how much of that you have to submit, is it like just that one day's conversation, or is it like as long as the content of the conversation was the same, it was kind of an interesting question, and it was one that I feel like the lawyers all kind of just knew and didn't know how to explain it. They're like, yeah, it's just whatever the — and so that, I don't know. It feels like these rules of evidence are from a time before digital stuff, mostly, I think. And it's like, oh, we have this letter, and then you just introduce the whole letter, it doesn't make sense, back in the day, you'd be like, would you clip out part of a paragraph of a letter? And so I do think that they would want you to just produce this email. But the fact that Paul introduced part of it and Dale didn't object, maybe, like, I could genuinely see that that means Dale's kind of out of luck, because he sort of allowed this email to be introduced by the other side in this form, like he's kind of stuck with that. But as far as B goes, would B be some rule that means, like, well, no, despite all these evidence problems, if they exist, because it's a contracty thing, and you need to be able to introduce evidence of any part of the transaction necessary to make it understood, then you can still do this. I find that unlikely, because I think, I think B is probably true, but not correct, maybe it's my instinct. Like, so B is Dale's entitled to introduce evidence of any part of the transaction necessary to make it understood, I think that's probably true, but that's probably just about what kind of evidence you can introduce, just like a more general rule, like, there's always going to be rules about relevance, and, you know, evidence, all that stuff. And that strikes me as like the rule, and then the evidence problems would kind of trump that, I think. All right. So C, Dale's evidence is inadmissible hearsay. I find it unlikely that that's going to be what it is, I mean, emails are hearsay, that's the funny thing, it always seems crazy to me, like, some of the stuff that I would think is the best evidence is, like, not according to the law, because you want to be able to cross-examine the person who made the statement. So it's a statement out of court introduced for the truth of the statement, that's the basic hearsay definition. Email also, I think, gets admitted probably because of hearsay exceptions, and I think also, possible B is actually about that, maybe, I don't know. No, it's possible B is about, like, sure, normally this is all hearsay, but it's part of a contract or a transaction, and so you can introduce it. I just, I think C is unlikely, I don't think it's inadmissible hearsay, or D, Dale's evidence is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. I can't quite remember what that is, but I don't think that's the answer, because it would be weird if that was the issue with it, introduces it, it's fine, Dale introduces it, like the same piece of evidence, essentially, and Paul's like, objection, this is inadmissible under parol evidence, I don't, unless, unless parol evidence is the name for the thing I was talking about where you have to have the complete, complete, would that make it inadmissible? I mean, I guess that's an interesting distinction. A would be, by failing to object, Dale waived any right to introduce any other part of it, that'd be about waiving something versus D being, well, no, it's inadmissible, assuming parol evidence rule is the thing I'm talking about. Once you introduced part of it, or once Paul introduced part of it, and you didn't object, you are no longer able to, it is inadmissible to try to submit any other part. Boy, I'm talking myself into that answer. I think I'm pretty solidly between A and D. So I've gotten that far. B is about being entitled to introduce evidence of any part of the transaction necessary to make it understood, I said, I think there's a chance that that's going to be some exception that rides on top of everything else, and I'm wrong, like, maybe that will kind of vitiate everything, no, I don't know, it'll kind of make this okay, it will patch up any other problems, maybe, I think that's possible, but unlikely. C, Dale's evidence is inadmissible hearsay. I will be very surprised, I will be very surprised. Well, hold on, wait a minute, okay, okay, is the issue that this email is actually just referencing some agreement that exists in some other form, when the email says there is no obligation to receive any surfboards unless they are delivered in one lot of 50 handmade surfboards. Is that like someone's version, it doesn't even say who said that, by the way, it was just kind of weird, is that like, okay, you and I have a contract, and in the email I say, like, oh, yeah, and, you know, just kind of referencing the contract, oh, there's no obligation to blah blah, that strikes me as a possible way that this could be, or is that parol evidence, this strikes me as a new, unique problem possibly, or the same problem, there's no obligation to receive any sort of, so is the issue actually that this is just, you want the contract. Like you just wanna just, just introduce the actual contract, if there is one, we don't know, and not a part of an email that references it, because who knows if they're referencing it correctly, basically. And the court would be like, this is not important, what's important is the actual contract. Is that the issue? You know, this, it might be the, either I'm totally off, or this is one of the hardest questions ever, because I don't, there's, there's like three plausible different things going on, and I can't tell what it is, and I can't remember exactly what parol evidence is, except that it feels like, having a weird memory that it's related to, like, what can be in writing versus not, but is that a parol evidence rule, weird, okay, I don't think that issue would make this inadmissible hearsay, so I think I'm still between A and D, as much as I do think that maybe there's another problem going on here, that for some reason that's seeming like it could be either parol evidence, or either that or like best evidence rule, but, oh, I think fundamentally it's A and D. And so I think this is really hard, and I should just try to narrow it down and hope I'm doing it right. Is it that Dale failed to object to the email and waived any right to introduce any other part of it? Or is it that the evidence is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule? I'm between A and D. I think I'm going to go with A, there's something that tells me, if they didn't object to this being the form of the email entered into evidence. And I think that's, that I'm a little, I'm a little worried about the waive part of it, like, that might be the wrong, it sounds like it could be wrong, but it, but it also, like, I'm pretty sure this would be how this works, I don't think you can just swap, like alternate turns, introducing, you know, sentences out of emails, I think you're supposed to introduce the whole thing. And if they didn't object, I think then that kind of goes into evidence as, as that thing, like that's that email, man, is that true? Right, there's a strong possibility it's D, but I think I'm going to go with A, I'm between A and D, I'm going with A, this one seemed fiendishly difficult, I love it, good challenge, can't wait to see how wrong I am. All right, Heather. Well, I am going to be on the edge of my surfboard waiting until next week, figuring out, find out if I got this right or wrong. I don't feel very confident, but either way, super fun, super challenging, looking forward to it, thanks for another fun question.

0:31:18 Heather: Of course, well, we'll find out then, well

0:31:23 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:31:33 Thomas: It's time to thank the patrons at patreon.com/law. These are the brilliant, amazing folks who make the show happen. And we start with a couple new names. Thank you to Nick Gabble and Van Noble for pledging. Hope you enjoy the goodies, especially because I think we have a really good Lotawful Movies or Lotawflu-something-else planned this month, more on that another time. Now, of course, it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats. And now that we have the time, I'm going to be thanking the whole crew each and every time. So get those fun names going, everybody. These are the folks that pledge at that $5 tier and above for at least a month, they are also the best. We start with thank you to Scott Vera, the existence of a union improves working conditions even for workers who aren't in the union, into it, makes me laugh every time, dear old dads reference. Judy Hanrahan, Stare Decisis has gone into hospice. Ian Goldfinch, Rana Haidari, Logomancer, sex and gender are different things and people should stop using them interchangeably. Apprentice of Adventure, Jesse D. Myers, that's a non-E mouse, cavalri, with an I. IT Coyote, unfrozen caveman lawyer, is a dish best served with cold hamburgers. Nick Fish, a negative phenomenon. Football season starting is just an appetizer for the upcoming hockey season. Oh, gosh, I am so excited for the incoming hockey season, I cannot wait. Going to be at the Sharks opening game, see Macklin, Celebrini, Will Smith, yeah, yeah, they have a hockey player named Will Smith, you know what, he's going to do a great job, he's going to be really good, gotta fight for your right to ex parte. Jaysank, Terry Cannon, no relation, recommendation, Rest is Resistance, a manifesto by Tricia Hersey. Fight capitalism and through naps, oh, a Chicago live show, you bring the law and I'll bring the winning presidential ticket at the DNC, oh great, now I have to go back to changing my name every month, well, every week, I'm fast at sex

0:33:35 Thomas: Thomas Freeman, Cajunkilla, Fraud Fishy Hates Everything, Chris Simpson, love the extra episodes, check out the Queer and Cryptography Conference I love the goddamn cranberries and Matt and Tom at the same time, and not in that order, but the cranberries are not my favorite band. Stare Decisis says, isn't a Patreon name, and I'm not reading anything right now. Now, I just personally think Legal Eagle is so handsome. Mark Schultz, the Cincinnati kid. Bob Loblaw's Law.... Podcast. Philly Basement Bar is out doors for Harris, you should too, great message, yes, definitely do that. Edgy Veggie. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. Baltakatei. Guy Chapman, the solutions archaeologist. Philip Kizer. I can't afford Blue Diamond Almonds, I have to settle for Aldi's nuts.

0:34:37 Thomas: 501st and Rebel Legion want you. Cosplayer's doing good. Milo Meadsong is on to the post-conviction process now that his cert petition was denied. A string of unpronounceable characters, Malaika Chandler, FRED R GROOTHUIS, Malcolm the Dragon the Precious Variant, Big Easy Blasphemy, RhondaTheDork.com, Chris Waltrip, Mitchell, and, bye Felicia, are still champion. Mitchell is so close, that is a race that I am very intensely tracking, but bye Felicia is still our champion. Thanks so much, Hall of Famers, all-time greats, you're the best. Again, join the ranks at patreon.com/law. All right, thanks so much for listening, now I'm about to go watch a debate that you already know how it went, you have that advantage over me right now, hopefully it's good news, we'll see, I'm sure you'll hear from me about it. We will see you Friday.

0:35:28 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.