Taking Jurisdiction Personally - T3BE 46

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: And welcome to opening arguments this is Thomas Takes the Bar Exam number 46. That's right. It's Wednesday. Gets schooled by the exam day. Bar exam is killing me lately. Let's see if I can recover because bar prep professional Heather Veronini will be on in a moment to give us the answer to last week's question, number 45, about the Mario Kart related one, the go -kart track. That was a lot of fun. Then, of course, she'll have a nice new question for us, question 46, and we'll get that in the later half. Lots of great participation this week. Can't wait to go through the answers that you all submitted. It's been a lot of fun. Thanks for doing that. Keep it up. All right. After this break, which you can avoid if you go to patreon.com/law, support the show, lose the ads. I mean, that's priceless. Come a deal. Both those things. Patreon .com .com and get to be the the winner of this over there. Right, Heather, how's it going today? Yeah,

0:01:39 Heather: Um, haven't ridden in any go-karts since we last talked, so not as good as I was hoping.

0:01:45 Thomas: I bet. I have—you know, my kids are, they're into Mario Odyssey right now, which is great. But, all that cart talk from, you last week is just, I was like, man, it was fun when we were playing Mario Kart together. Anyway. Cause what I don't know is whether you have once again bamboozled us or if I just bamboozled myself, we'll find out. What was last week's question? Remind the listeners our Mario Kart themed question.

0:01:53 Heather: A great game. We had the owner of an estate. His name was Orion. And he gave an amusement park company an easement to build, operate, and maintain a go -kart track on the estate. Then what happened was he sold the land to Betty, a botanist. In that amount of time, the amusement park had not done anything with the easement. After Betty had purchased the estate, that's when the amusement part company decided they wanted to build their go -kart track. They also wanted to install some wind turbines or turbines.

0:02:38 Thomas: We say turbines here.

0:02:40 Heather: Yeah. Then Betty didn't want to allow that to happen. So, we're trying to determine whether or not the amusement park company can build either or both of the wind turbines and the go -kart track on Betty's estate. If I recall correctly, your answer, you said, was A, and your second chance answer was C. And you identified this as a real property question that was testing easements.

0:03:02 Thomas: Yeah. As a real-go-F-yourself question, as a real property question, because I think Heather's trying to make me quit. I'm pretty sure. So It's like the last one was a huge trick that got us all. And then this one is just real property, which is impossible, so there you go.

0:03:17 Heather: Well, I want you to know that you're in really good company with a lot of law students and studying for the bar because property tends to not be a lot of folks' favorite for a number of reasons. Now, I just want to hear you maybe explain a little bit why you don't love real property, if you don't mind.

0:03:33 Thomas: I will say that I do enjoy the questions because they're usually stuff like this, where it's like kind of interesting, and it does at least feel realistic in a way, or like it feels kind of accessible in a way. But real property, I think, is classically considered so difficult because a lot of the rules are just like, yeah, go F yourself. Like, it's not like contracts; I feel like that's pretty logical. Like I can, even though my recent contract performance hasn't been necessarily the best, but usually there's a reason for it. Like, someone who does not study, um, logic behind something is the only way I get anything right. And having, you know, predictable stuff really helps me. Whereas real property, I think there's lots of stuff that's just like, I don't know, man, this is how they did it in 1520 in England, and that's why this is how it is. And I guess a lot of the law has some aspect of that, I think, right? But real property feels most like that to me

0:04:26 Heather: And you wouldn't be wrong in the sense that there's whole sections where that's the case. There's a section, don't worry, it's not this. It's called present estates and future interests. And a lot of it's that. And there's also, it bears little relationship, especially in that section, between the name of the rule and the contents of it. And so a lot of times, since they're disproportionate, it can be really hard to, like you said, wrap your head around it because there's not a lot of logic that feels like it's related. The thing is that there's a lot of topics within real property. So it often feels kind of, I think, hard to kind of wrap your arms around when you're a law student or like when you're studying for the bar, because there's so much inside of it. There's so many rules. There's like, there's such a lot of rules. There's just so much. How do I grasp all of that? How do I memorize it? How do identify like what's coming up when and so on top of it can feel like you said, kind of like that old timey? What does this make sense? You know, how do we have all this? It can also just feel really heavy from the weight of it just being a lot of stuff. Off. So I want you to know you're in good company. Part of what we're here to talk about today, trying to make some of it make sense. Start with the easement part. You did correctly identify this as a question easements. For folks who are listening who might not be familiar, easement is a grant of non-possessory interest in land that entitles the holder of the easement to use or enjoy another person's land. I think, said in a way that makes a little bit more sense, it's an agreement to use land that you don't own. And we use and see easements all the time. For example, a lot of times, let's say you own a piece of property, it is likely that your city likely has an easement on your property, or for example, the electrical company — for California, that is likely PG&E — they have an easement to come onto your property to read the meter, or something to that effect, they did, back when that was a thing. That's pretty normal, which means that they can just come onto the land, just for — that's what an easement is, and that's what this question's testing.

0:06:11 Thomas: And it sounds like an easement can be a range of things, right? I mean, it sounds like it can be from just going on the property, reading a meter to potentially building something on a property.

0:06:21 Heather: Exactly, it. It also kind of highlighted something, which is that, again, it is a lot. Also, even within easements, there's a lot of subtopics within the easement, which makes it a highly testable area on the bar exam, and also sometimes kind of hard to navigate because there's a lot of subtopics. And we're going to cover some of them.

0:06:37 Thomas: Yeah, but I also feel like as a lawyer, or in law school, I feel like we should be able to opt out of this shit. Like, you know, like if you're going to go be a lawyer, when you're a doctor, you do, I guess you do learn a lot of general doctor stuff, but then you're also like, hey, I'm going to be a foot doctor and I'm going to just learn the feet stuff. And I feel like this should be something where in law school you can be like, oh, I don't want to do any of this. Screw this. Like, I don't want to do real property. Don't make me learn it. Cause, like, it's not helpful, but that's just me.

0:07:09 Heather: Say this. When Wen and I purchased our house some years after I graduated from law school — I will say property was hard as a student, for the bar. And then it was one of those things that it crept up on me. So we were getting all of our mortgage documents. Of course, I read every single page. And I don't mean like figuratively.

0:07:23 Thomas: You poor soul.

0:07:25 Heather: I mean, I literally read every page.

0:07:25 Thomas: I barely looked at them. I was like, if somebody, that's surprised again, as a fellow ADHDer, there are decisions I make in life where it's like, well, Well, if me not reading this means I get screwed, I guess that's just how the world works. I don't, I'm not willing to read 400 pages of nothing. Sorry.

0:07:40 Heather: I think my response was the opposite, where I don't think we paid all that money for me to become a lawyer. So All of a sudden, all these topics I learned in property started to make sense. Like, really, a lot of them that maybe didn't make sense while I was trying to study them because they were feeling really abstract, started to make a lot of sense in actuality and seeing the documents, right? And so, even as we're going to walk through this, I'm going to talk about some of them as it relates to the house, because I was like, oh, I'm reading the documents, and I think it might be one of those things where even if you're like a student and you're feeling like, I don't want to do property, do it anyway because it will likely be useful to you at some point in some way. So if you're feeling, like, in those instances, kind of like Thomas, what you're saying, where you're like, this doesn't make sense — it likely won't. It doesn't mean it won't come up at some time. And you're going to come up to a point and you're, like, oh, I needed to

0:07:46 Thomas: That's a good point. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Mm -hmm.

0:08:31 Heather: Know this somewhere.

0:08:31 Thomas: I don' I don't want to burst your bubble, but unless your story ends with you telling the Monopoly man who came and, like, ha ha, I got you because of Clause 7. And you're like, no, I actually read it. And he's like, no. Like, unless your story ends with that, I think what's going to happen — as you bought a house and signed the papers and then you had the house — is what I think the story is gonna be, Heather. But you can correct me if I'm wrong. But I will say that the same thing happened with accounting, because a lot of accounting is actually really complicated. And I remember being in college and was like, I don't really understand the reason for any of this. But then, once I started just working at a company as a staff accountant, there's a lot of stuff where I had completely forgotten basically all of my education. But then I kind of made it up myself, but with, like, a foggy memory of what it was, and I was like, oh, it's actually really easy once you're doing it.

0:09:15 Heather: Yeah. Stuff where reading it really did help, and it did make a difference. Today might be that day. We'll see.

0:09:22 Thomas: Okay, well, let's get to our Mario Kart question, see how it relates to that.

0:09:26 Heather: I said, there's a lot of different topics within property and within easements. So within easement, some of the main categories are types, creation, modification, termination, scope. So one of the things that you had mentioned, as you were working through the question, about the amusement park company's failure to use, uh, the easement over time, and about whether or not that meant, um, they couldn't use it anymore by the time that Betty purchased the land, right? All

0:09:50 Thomas: Thought 30 years was long enough that it's like nah that's it's too long.

0:09:53 Heather: Let's talk about that, so I think that's a good place to start, because, um, I think what you're getting at there was how easements are terminated, basically how they're ended. And generally speaking, the rule is that — best for purposes of the bar — easements last forever until they're terminated.

0:10:05 Thomas: Crap. All right.

0:10:06 Heather: Sorry.

0:10:07 Thomas: A good start.

0:10:09 Heather: They can be terminated voluntarily or by court order. There's a number of different ways in which they can be. And one of those ways is abandonment. However, mere non-use is insufficient. So sorry. That means in this context is that our friend, the amusement company, just because they don't use the easement doesn't mean that they've abandoned it. It

0:10:31 Thomas: It. That sucks. I hate that. Okay?

0:10:34 Heather: I know. That's why I think this is a good wrong answer choice is because this is what some of the question's testing. It's testing this termination slash abandonment issue. That when you want to abandon an easement, you intend to abandon, and then you actually have to do it. What does that look like?

0:10:50 Thomas: Jeez.

0:10:50 Heather: A lot of times that means you have to do an action to abandon, and that would likely be filing some kind of paperwork or a court order or something like that.

0:10:58 Thomas: Your red turtle and going home.

0:11:00 Heather: Yeah, that's exactly right. In practical terms, a lot of that's going to be based on state law. So California has its own law about abandonment, which you're free to look up on the LegInfo site. That's what I did. Anyway, so that exists. For the purposes of the amusement park company, just because they didn't use it for a long time doesn't mean that they can't use it at some point later.

0:11:18 Thomas: Yeah, well, that's sucks.

0:11:19 Heather: So that means that the 'no' answer for the purposes of abandonment is, unfortunately, a wrong answer choice. You also did something that's really important, which is that you started thinking about comparing and contrasting the original easement and later with what the easement holder wanted to do, right? What's that agreement they got into with the original owner versus what did they want to do with Betty later in time? And that's a really important thing to think about, because — so what was the original agreement that the amusement park company got into with

0:11:45 Thomas: Well, I mean, it's so sparse — was one of the reasons I thought it just couldn't, because it's like all we got was an easement to build and operate, comma, as well as maintain a go-kart track on his estate. That's it. That's all we've got. And then we get some stuff later that's like the amount of go-karts than when the easement was granted. So I guess there was an amount of go-karts, and it also said the same land covered by the easement. So then we're also to believe that maybe there's some plot of land specifically that it was contained in. And so I don't, I don't know, like, what the original thing was. It just feels like the original — the original thing wasn't described enough.

0:12:19 Heather: What they're trying to do, a lot of the time, is — pull reasonable — this is where the question is trying to direct you, to that the amusement park company got an easement to build, operate, and maintain a go-kart track. They go back that second time, right? Is that something that they can do?

0:12:32 Thomas: Yeah.

0:12:32 Heather: You think that, um, the amusement park company goes back to Betty right after Orion sold it. Do you think that what they're trying to do, uh, when Betty purchases it, is similar enough to the agreement that they made with Orion, that they're able to do that? They're

0:12:45 Thomas: First answer being out the window, I — that's why I went to yes, go-kart track, but no wind turbine. But it feels like that's what was frustrating me about this question, is it felt like you could make an argument for the wind turbines had they presented it in the manner of, like, well, yeah, it's to power the go-karts, or it's in some way related to the operation of the go-kart track. But because the question doesn't really do that, that's Why I went with C as my second chance answer.

0:13:09 Heather: That's good thinking, right? What this question's testing is another part of easements, which is scope, right? You bring me to that, which is that each easement has a particular scope, which kind of covers its purpose. And the scope is often defined by the terms. And if the terms happen to be ambiguous, courts look for the intent of the parties, right? They're looking kind of at a reasonableness standard. What's kind of reasonable to infer here? To your point about, you know, we can make an argument about the wind turbines — do we think, like, if a court's looking at this, do we think that even if it includes, let's say, build, operate, maintain, do we think that, say, a couple of wind turbines is reasonable to include in that? Or do we think that would exceed the scope?

0:13:47 Thomas: The way that they're presenting it too, especially because it's like, well, it's since purchased an alternative energy company, meaning it hadn't at the time, so it feels like that wouldn't have been part of it. It feels like the question is leaning me toward, no, that's not part of it. But yeah

0:14:00 Heather: Exactly right. That's exactly what the question is doing. It's trying to tell you that these wind turbines are outside the scope of the original agreement and the original easement. I'll throw in another thing, because the question does this too: what do we think about the double the amount of go-karts? Do we think that matters? Is that inside or outside the scope?

0:14:16 Thomas: That's the kind of thing that signaled me off, because it seemed like, okay, if there was an amount of go-karts in the original easement that was properly recorded, then it actually does feel like that would be something you would have to stick to. Like, I feel like if it was like — like, okay, we're agreeing that you may take your eight go-karts on my property. And then you're like, okay, but actually, I want 16. I feel like that wouldn't be okay. In the same way that it's like, yes, the energy guy can come read your meter. Can seven energy guys at one time come and read your meter? I don't know. Is that a different thing? I don't know.

0:14:47 Heather: That's a good question. The original agreement, to — on the facts we're given, doesn't tell us the number, right?

0:14:51 Thomas: Based on the facts we're given, it does tell us the number. It just — but didn't have it. Because if it says there'll be double the amount of go-karts than when the easement was granted, how — what does that mean if not that there was an original number of go-karts in the original easement? Hmm, calling foul on this question. I — I do like, double the amount of go-karts than when the easement was granted, that — that's meant to be read as there was a number specified in the original easement, or, like, the company had double the go-karts than when they originally got the easement, which is — that just doesn't make any sense to me. Like, that doesn't matter because they didn't, they never built or operated or maintained the go-kart track. So why would they have any at that time? It just — I don't — it doesn't make any sense.

0:15:30 Heather: Yeah, I gotcha. Yeah.

0:15:31 Thomas: It's double of a number that either doesn't exist or was specifically entered in the easement, which I feel like would be important. I call foul on this question. A pox on your question. A poxa on all your questions.

0:15:40 Heather: Sorry, I said it again. Listen, that is fair.

0:15:45 Thomas: My question is, what's your answer, how we're to think about that in terms of scope?

0:15:50 Heather: Um, the number itself isn't what matters per se. There's nothing to suggest, now, that what they're trying to do is so radically different than what...

0:15:58 Thomas: Fundamentally different. Yeah.

0:15:59 Heather: Yeah, and that's really the way that I think about it when I look at this question.

0:16:03 Thomas: I see everything happening there. I just — you and I, property owner A and person B, and I'm like, hey Heather, I know you have a fondness for Mario Kart and you personally like to ride your kart, I will grant you an easement, and in that easement I will write, you know, for other considerations, I will allow you to ride five go-karts, exactly five, and that's written into this easement, and then you're like, awesome, 30 years later, 10 go-karts, is that okay? Like, imagine we had specifically agreed on a number that's in this easement, what, that's fine to just double that number because to be honest with you this is kind of why I went with a because I thought that the language there I am crying foul on this question I really am curious if anyone will back me up in my appeal on this, and I don't do this that often. I've joked about it sometimes, but, like, usually I — I would say 99% of the time I'm like, oh yeah, I see where I went wrong there. But, like, 'there would be double the amount of go-karts than when the easement was granted' — I get that it's ambiguous, but in a way where only one possibility makes any sense, because there weren't go-karts originally, they never built it and operated it, so they can only be talking about that the easement had had a specific number granted. It feels — and to me, that if there was a specific number granted, then it wouldn't be okay to just double that number, even if it's in the same scope. That feels right? I mean, am

0:16:36 Heather: Well, that's a good question and Right, Like, a question, um, like this kind come in certain flavors. I, um, hadn't seen when they get that specific, which is why I don't have a good answer.

0:17:30 Thomas: The other thing is, like, the same land covered by the easement — that was the other thing that signaled, like, okay, so we didn't have all the details of it, you — it just says an easement, that's all it says, originally an easement to build and operate as well as maintain, that's it. Now, does an easement always entail, like, a specific part of a property, or, like — that sounded like, oh, you've got an easement to do the following thing, and then later it says the same land covered by the easement, so, which makes it sound like, oh, there was more to it than we knew, and that was why it made sense to me that, like, okay, there also sounds like there was a number, a specific number, based on that other sentence. And so, you know, I was in the mode of like, well, we didn't know all the details. And if the details included a specific number, it feels like it's not cool to go over that. True, I don't know what that was referring to when it said it's double — like, double what number — that, like, I just think it's a badly written question.

0:18:18 Heather: No, listen, and you can think that. That's fine. I've done plenty of, no, all I meant is, listen I've been plenty of questions and I've thought the same thing where I've like, I don't like this question, it's terrible, I hate it.

0:18:21 Thomas: I'm thanks. I'm free to think that. Thanks.

0:18:30 Thomas: Foul on the question almost ever, really. I might joke about, like, ah, this sucks. But a trick question is a trick question. Last week's question made perfect sense. I'd have no argument with that question. It just was hard. This one, I don't like. I think that if you had a solid answer for me, that it was like, yeah, if you had an easement that had specifically a number of go-karts, like, whatever, however that's written, because they have to be — they'd be pretty specific, right? Because they are, because the range of them, the scope, the very scope, the thing we're talking about, ranges so much that I imagine it would have to be pretty specific in general on easements. Like, I guess my point is, however those are done, there has to be specificity, because if I tell someone, okay, you may check my meter, that's very specific. I imagine that it wouldn't be like, yeah, I've just granted you, you know, one of the, like, uh, default easements, like just a generic easement to do whatever. Like, that sounds like they can be very specific, and this heavily implied, or if not outright said, cause it was the only reasonable explanation, that there was a specific number of go-karts. I do wonder, like, forget — if, everything else, if there was an easement that granted a specific number of vehicles that you may have on my property for something, like, I could imagine that, hey, uh, you

0:19:38 Thomas: Can drive across my property to get to your property. Uh, no more than, I don't know, two, three vehicles at a time, so that it's — it's not like, oh, I'm inviting all my friends to come have, like, a derby. I'm like, you know, that's not something I agree to. I think that would be not cool in the same way that I think it wouldn't be cool to double the amount of go-karts if there were a specific number agreed to. So I — I have not yet figured out how this makes sense, to be honest with you, double the amount. Now, I think what it wanted to say maybe is that there, like, was some building plan or something. That's probably what it wanted to say. Like, the company itself had a plan for go-karts, and it was eight go-karts because that was all the rage back then in Super Mario Kart. It had nothing to do with the easement itself.

0:20:23 Heather: What I'll say is this about your question about specificity. Easements can be very specific and they can be really broad. The challenge really comes at the end of the day when someone's trying to enforce them, right?

0:20:33 Thomas: -hmm. That the original easement set eight go-karts, and then this guy comes on, he's like, hey Betty botanist, 16 go-karts and wind turbines, what would the answer be?

0:20:43 Heather: That is a little more challenging, because Orion, 30 years ago, says eight's fine. Then it's now, later, inflation of go cards.

0:20:51 Thomas: Do they do they, in 1994 go-kart numbers, you guys apply the inflation metrics to get to where it is now? Yeah, no, but if it had a specific number, if it had a specific number, like, the reason I say this is, like, this very much was the thought process that I had. And also, I did eventually think, well, this isn't answerable because it didn't tell us, so therefore it must be something else. Now, that turned out to be wrong, because — not going to pretend I went that way directly because of this, but it was indirectly. It was like, well, we can't answer that because it doesn't — it's not — it's ambiguous, that sentence is ambiguous, it doesn't really tell me which of those things is true, which kind of ultimately led me to a different answer. But anyway, point is, I am — this is under protest — but is the correct answer C? Are we just landing on C?

0:21:13 Heather: It's C. And there's actually another reason why C is right. You actually mentioned this. So you were talking about — you know, because you talked about, at one point, making sure that when you purchase something, you have to know what it is that you're purchasing.

0:21:45 Thomas: Yeah, I was gonna ask you about, like, okay, the bundle of sticks analogy, Betty didn't know that she was buying an incomplete bundle of sticks, so what happens there yeah

0:21:52 Heather: So, It's proper. Yeah, no, I'm really glad that you brought that up, because this goes to notice. And you've done enough of these questions to know that notice runs through things like constitutional law and civil procedure. And it runs pretty heavily through a lot of these topics. It's for acquiring legal title by somebody like Betty, who's — right, not trying to acquire it by illegal means. You can have more than one type of notice. So there's three types to kind of come up — again, you can have more than one type. Like I said, I really like mnemonic devices.

0:22:18 Heather: And I use the one called AIR, right? So A-I-R. The first type is actual notice. And it's what it sounds like. Purchaser of the parcel that has the easement on it, that's also referred to as the burdened parcel, that the easement existed. So they have to essentially have personal knowledge. Our friend Betty here, she didn't know. No one told her directly. So when she purchased the parcel, she did not have

0:22:39 Thomas: But it was properly recorded so she could go look it up is the point.

0:22:42 Heather: So you bring me to the R, which is record notice, or also known as constructive notice, which means that she should have known because the easement is recorded in the chain of title. And so, for folks who might not know, chain of title is a historical record of ownership that transfers a piece of property. And recording really is the process of filing the deed with a county recorder. Depending on your county, you may have those records online, they may be digitized, or they may be in person, so you could actually go look at them. You and I, it sounds like we both bought property, and are familiar with what this is, and how this goes. And that's exactly what Betty has here. That phrase, that the easement was promptly and properly recorded, means that although Betty didn't actually have personal knowledge of the easement, she was expected to have known because it was in the chain of title. So, even though you might not have actual knowledge, you have that record notice. I is the inquiry notice. It means that a person should have known because there were visible signs of an easement, or that they should have inquired.

0:23:36 Thomas: There's the outline of a go -kart track. Yeah yeah that didn't count, right? Or yeah, yeah yeah so

0:23:39 Heather: There was a rainbow road. Or something, like, like there's phone lines or roads to your property. Here, the note that I literally had was, yeah, here I just had the go -kart tracks hadn't been laid yet. So she would not have had inquiry notice. So

0:23:52 Thomas: It's the — it's R of the AIR is what you're saying? Yeah, that

0:23:55 Heather: That's's exactly it. Yeah. That's part of why C is also the correct answer, is because she was expected to have record notice. For those of you who are purchasing property — let's say everyone does it all the time — that's why you do the title search. That is why you have a title company. That's why you pay title insurance is that you have someone who does that for you.

0:24:09 Thomas: The clear the title kind of thing. And so, had it not been recorded or something, and not told about, and there's no evidence of it, then is the amusement park company out of luck there? Or yeah, Interesting,

0:24:20 Heather: Yeah, definitely. Because the bona fide purchaser, sorry, slash innocent purchaser, our friend Betty the botanist, would not have had notice of the easement.

0:24:28 Thomas: That all makes sense, so try to remember that. Hey, was there anything from your property buying experience that you were trying to get in here when

0:24:35 Heather: I was reviewing, I noticed that there was at least one major easement on the property that we ended up purchasing. And I almost didn't purchase the property because of it. The city has an easement on the property, and it turned out it was a drainage easement. Something that's not uncommon is something like that. And some of the rules around the easement is that they can come on anytime to inspect it and review it.

0:24:55 Thomas: But could at least use it as negotiation, I imagine, right?

0:24:58 Heather: Then that actually ended up happening with something else as well, and I read the fine print, negotiated the price down.

0:25:03 Thomas: There you go, there is a benefit to reading. I've — again, I'm not going to do it, but — I'm glad that people like Heather can read the fine print. Maybe I'll run it by you next time. It got us again, but — and big bar exam in there in your smoke -filled room you didn'T get thomas's second chance law firm that one got the answer c and heather it is time to check reddit .com slash r slash open args and of course patreon .com law more importantly I'll say it more importantly patreon. Com slash law but you know uh see if everybody fell for this like I did um how many people have pitchforks and are coming for uh your head you know I'll I'll try to protect you but I don't I don' t know you mob is the mob I'm not sure that I can entirely control troll the thing that the show has helped create no just kidding um first of all what's your overall impression because it seems like mo majority of people went with me and went with a um not like everybody. I think some people definitely got that the answer was C. So, you know, that's kind of what I'm seeing. I

0:26:01 Heather: That was my impression as well. And I think that's part of why — please don't be angry at me — I think it's part of why A is a good trap answer. So I think you if were thinking A, I think you will see hopefully – and I try to tell this to my students too – when you see so many people also answer A as a wrong answer choice or got that answer wrong also, know that falling down the rabbit hole with a lot of your other good friends. And that's a really good learning opportunity. So I don't want you to feel alone — not. It's also, it's part of the reason that that was such a good wrong answer choice, is because it was testing, do you know how abandonment works? Do you know what it takes?

0:26:07 Thomas: Get, it yeah Oh, I know, how abandon- ment works Yeah, it was really testing the emotionally damaged among us to see, like, wow, yeah, does abandonment — whereas Heather's like, 30 years is fine, yeah, that's okay. And then we're like, yeah, it's abandoned, it's over. No, I think you shouldn't also discount how much people might be influenced by hearing this idiot answer the question first. So there's also that. You never know. I wish we could run a double blind of, like, what people would have said without me speaking into their ears, like a worm tongue or something. But I gotta go with one_negative_person first — one_negative_person, who says, I feel that this is a no-wind situation, and the amusement park company can go-kart itself, there was no mention of the easement in the sale of the land, so A is my guess. That's wrong, but very funny, like, I thought that was probably the one I laughed the most at, so, honorable mention. Yeah, I think this is your winner on the Reddit, your pick for winner, VP Business — which, is that like, there's Lord Business from the old Lego Movie, and then VP Business is like the underling, maybe? I don't know, I'm not sure what that is. Long-time listener, first-time commenter. Thanks to Thomas for the guilt trip from a few episodes ago. Oh, you're welcome. You know, that's nice to

0:27:43 Thomas: Be recognized.

0:27:43 Heather: Happy to oblige.

0:27:44 Thomas: Yeah, I know. And more guilt to you. And I will say, thank you so much for receiving my guilt trip, everybody. Lots of players this week, both on the Reddit and Patreon. And I love it, it's so much fun. Heather and I, seriously, we get a delight from reading your responses, and this is getting more and more fun each time. So please keep it up. And yes, you felt guilty, but you did the right thing with that guilt. So — and you, you also may be the winner, we'll see. Answer is C. Diligence is the buyer's responsibility, and if properly registered, the buyer should have known of the easement. Therefore the go-kart track can be built. Easements are granted for specific purposes. There's no mention of a wind turbine being allowed on the property in this easement, therefore, it may not be built. This is all based on my limited knowledge of real estate law in Canada. Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm comfortable in assuming the laws are the same in all countries. Please don't correct me if I'm wrong. Sure. Yeah, this is a great answer. VP Business, despite being Canadian, you nailed it.

0:28:37 Heather: The C is both for the correct answer and for being Canadian.

0:28:41 Thomas: Yeah. Anything more to say about that one, or it's pretty much just your pick, right? Right.

0:28:45 Heather: And it was my pick because — for the reasoning that the buyer should have known of the easement, right? And also because easements are granted for purposes. And again, because there was no mention of the wind turbine as part of the reason why the wind turbines are not allowed. So there was really great reasoning on VP Business as part. Although, that real estate law can be different from country to country, and at least in the United States, different from state to state, I will correct you there, just for the listeners out there, at least on the bar exam. Interesting also to see the perspective — sorry, not see, read the perspective of someone from Canada. So thank you for your contribution. I really enjoyed reading your answer.

0:29:18 Thomas: We do. Also, we can remember that, you know, there was a country that gave us a lot of our law, and the most independence days throughout the entire earth, that I think we share a common ancestor when it comes to a lot of this law. So maybe it is similar in many places. We got Say No To MAGA Fascists says they think it's A, because of the 30 years. Hey, that's kind of what I thought. So, you know, us geniuses both got it wrong.

0:29:43 Thomas: Let's — someone else picked up on my logical problem with the question, Bukowskified. But it — I get it, we're wrong, but I'm also — this one's under appeal, and could take two, three years before we learn the results of this appeal. I think we should stay the question. Like we should, like, just, uh, for scoring purposes, put it in the other column. You really don't have to humor me with this, it's fine. But Bukowskified said, real property, so it feels like I'm just guessing. I didn't answer A because the wind turbines were never in the easement, and they aren't following the easement by doubling the go-karts. So Betty should have done a check on the title at the time of purchase that revealed the easement, but the original terms of the easement are not being met anyway. So, you're a genius and totally correct.

0:30:23 Thomas: Here's an interesting one, actually, that might give your pick for winner, VP Business, a run for their money. Jason Rennie says — it says, buyer beware. Part of the reason you pay for a title search when buying property is to learn of any easement. Easements don't disappear after a certain number of years, so long as they were properly recorded, but easements specify what is allowed, so no, the company can't do things that weren't specified in the easement. But I assume — this is a big sentence here, I hope you're listening, Heather — I assume the

0:30:51 Heather: I'm sorry, my ears are closed. I'm saying, what did you say? What?

0:30:52 Thomas: Original — I hope your listening, appeals court, I assume the original easement didn't specify the number of go-karts. So I'm going with answer C, yes to the go-kart track, but no to the wind turbines. I like that because it is conditional on the fact that the original easement doesn't specify. And I think it's incredibly reasonable to read the question as though it did specify, because there's no other, like, possible meaning to that sentence. So I think I'm picking Jason Rennie to be the genius answer, because not only did they get it right, they conditioned it on the assumption that I very much think is reasonable to assume, the other way, based on the question. So they hit everything.

0:31:27 Heather: And this is one of the other, um, answers that I had read and liked in the Reddit forum because of their, the uh, thinking and the reasoning behind the answer choice. So, I'm glad that you identified this one as well, because I was reading this too. And I was going, or, choice, so yeah it sounds like, yeah,

0:31:39 Thomas: We can all agree. But lots of people — now I'm looking, maybe it's even, it's probably more like 50-50 — a lot of people got C correct. I think we got a lot of real lawyers listening. And so, I would say to sum up, our Reddit winners are, once again, one_negative_person for the funniest one, even though it was wrong, VP Business, and also winner — I'm pulling rank — and my big giant winner, Jason Rennie, for absolutely nailing every part of this question, including my big problem with it, that, uh, is pending in the appeals court of California. Uh, right, let's go to patreon.com/law and see who's the big winner over there. First off, Eat A Kangaroo You Piece Of Shit is a patron name, and they say, I hope I heard it right when Heather said that the company was Mintendo — I doubt it, because that's a reference to Dear Old Dads, I don't know that Heather's picked up Dear Old Dads — but kid says Mintendo, mint-tendo, instead of Nintendo, which is the cutest thing in the world, uh, Great State of Denial, I think, nailed it pretty well. They said C. I believe an easement survives a change in ownership, which eliminates A and B since the amusement park company would have existing rights to the easement between C and D. D discusses an installation that was not part of the original agreement, the wind turbine. So C is the correct response. Yeah. And also C discusses, uh, that was not part of the original agreement, which was double the, go the go-karts. But, but yes, but, yes, I do. Great say of denial with a great answer there. Um, Brian Pemberton says, did anyone else hear a ghost complaining about 13th century Saxony? That's great. I'm gonna go ahead and say when it comes to patreon .com slash law I think the majority of people got the right answer I think I'm I'm out on the on a limb on this one a bit um this is not a Good Document when it Comes to My Appeal like this has been Discovery gonna be like well what did the patrons say and then I'm gonna have to turn it over and be like yeah but they're part of it they're Part of the Conspiracy it doesn't count um

0:32:28 Heather: It's okay, for Of the question conspiracy.

0:33:21 Thomas: Yeah. Definitely got some A's. Says, thank you for all the Princess Bride sidequotes. You're welcome. Don't remember what that was, but I agree. It's always good. As much as Heather, as you have me tied in knots, that's nothing compared to Peter Olson, who says, I'm going to go with B because I felt betrayed by last week's question, figured that at least one person should choose the least intuitive answer.

0:33:43 Thomas: So B is no as to the go-karts, but yes as to the wind turbines, which that's fantastic. That is, I could come up with a justification, personally. I could do it, but it wouldn't be right. I wouldn't argue for it that much. But Peter, thanks for the laugh. I do need to give one final mention to Kate from Seattle, who said, I've decided to use Air Bud Law, which already, you're already a winner in my heart, because Air Bud law is... And declare that ain't no rule says a librarian can't do research. This was probably a mistake, as I've now gotten myself twisted into knots over the distinction between easement appurtenant and an easement in gross. So... me that courts generally presume appurtenant, okay, what is this? What is this word? Kate is bringing words that weren't even in the questions.

0:34:03 Heather: You're yes we love you ah different types of easements. Looking at easements, I break them down into two categories. When you're going through types, there's one type that's positive versus negative, and then there's another type that's appurtenant versus in gross. And we didn't talk about this because the question didn't really require us to do that. So I skipped skipped that part. So if you are somebody who was like, she didn't talk about it, what are we talking about? Easement appartement. Easement in gross are different because easements in gross, they're not just like disgusting easements, although I'm sure that may be what you might be feeling. In growth are when the who grants the easement is doing so to benefit a person rather than a piece of land. What that would look like in this particular question is if Orion gave the easement over to, let's say, the company itself or a person within the company, right? So let's say he gives it to Miyamoto, okay, an easement in gross.

0:35:13 Thomas: And it's meant just for that person. And assuming that means they can't pass it on or something?

0:35:18 Heather: Yeah. So, the benefit runs like the person, again, that would be him, let's say, giving it over to Miyamoto to say, like, you get the go-kart, like, we're giving you this easement for the go-kart track, but we're giving it specifically to Miyamoto. These types tend to be at least disfavored, tend to kind of lean more towards appurtenant, meaning that they're ones that are granted to the land, which is what we have here, which is that it is the type of easement that goes with the land itself.

0:35:44 Thomas: It sounds like Kate from Seattle went a little bit, you know, off the beaten path of this. I get it, in true librarian fashion, was like, I read additional stuff. And I think the question kind of alludes to it a little and maybe tries to get people like Kate to think this because it talks about the company acquiring the solar company or whatever it was. You know, like there might, there's some change in company there that maybe is like meant to kind of throw people off of that, that. It, like, we're not dealing with that for today. So that's nice that we get to avoid some of that weird terminology, the thing. Even though Kate from Seattle did a lot of analysis that was tied to this thing that wasn't part of the question, she still got it right and I didn't. She said, therefore, I'm going with C, which is my gut instinct all along. So I think if it led her to do her gut instinct, then that's what I needed to do, too. So I would say overall winner from, the Great State of Denial, who answered C, and also Not That Millionaire, who said, I'm going with C because I don't think there's a time limit on easements. However, since it was for a go-kart track only and not wind turbines, I think they are limited to the track. Otherwise you could build anything like a nuclear waste dump and that doesn't seem right. So Not That Millionaire and the Great State of Denial, I think, are big winners on patreon.com/law. Thanks so much for playing. That was a ton of fun. And yeah, I would say you did better than I did this week. Internet, you win all.

0:37:01 Heather: Love these answers.

0:37:02 Thomas: Well, let's take a break and see what new horrors Heather has in store for me with question 46.

0:37:08 Heather: Halloween is coming up.

0:37:13 Thomas: This episode has been brought to us by Quince. It is fall, easily the best season, not really any competition for that, they should have tried harder on the other ones, because now that it's finally no longer a billion degrees, it's time to change up that wardrobe. Quince has you covered. Quince offers affordable, high-quality essentials for any wardrobe. That includes seasonal must-haves like Mongolian cashmere sweaters from $60 and comfortable pants for any occasion. Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices along with premium fabrics, and they partner with them directly, cutting out the cost of the middleman and passing the savings on to you. That means Quince items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands, so you can update your look without breaking the bank. For example, I just ordered these flow knit performance joggers. A good jogger, I checked. You don't have to be at jogging to get a performance jogger, which is a relief. I'm hoping to do almost no jogging with them, but I could if I wanted to. If I did, they'll be just like everything else I've gotten from Quince. It lasts, it's high quality, and it's a great price. Upgrade your wardrobe with pieces made to last with Quince. Go to quince.com/OA for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365-day returns. One more time, quince.com/OA.

0:38:38 Thomas: Let's have our spooktacular question 46, uh, uh, see if it's as scary as the last two. I

0:38:45 Heather: Was married to Patty, where they lived together in California for over a decade. Don grew tired of his marriage and moved to Florida, where he filed for divorce but did not serve process on Patty. Patty did not have any contacts with the state of Florida, as she had never set foot there a day in her life. During this divorce debacle, Patty's mother received a letter from Big Envelope Winnings that led her to believe she won a beautiful beachfront home in Florida and was required to travel there to claim it.

0:39:09 Thomas: Love this. Wait.

0:39:10 Heather: And her mom flew to Florida together, despite Patty's belief that there was no home awaiting her mother on the shores of Florida's warm waters. Upon landing in Florida, Patty's mom quickly learned that she had not won anything at all, and Big Envelope Winnings was later shut down for sending letters fraudulently enticing people to come to Florida. However, while in Florida, Patty was served by her husband, Don, with a summons related to the Florida divorce proceedings. Patty argues that she is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. Will she prevail? A, yes, because her presence in Florida was procured by fraud. B, yes, because she did not have minimum contacts with Florida. C, no, because Patty consented to personal jurisdiction in Florida. D, no, because Patty was served while physically present in Florida.

0:39:55 Thomas: This is going to be tough. Right away, the question, I thought it was wrong for a sec because it said Patty and her mom flew to Florida together, despite Patty's belief that there was no home waiting for her mom. That was a weird way to put that. So I didn't realize that it was Patty's mother that received the letter from Big Envelope Winnings. And, like, no, you boomer, this is obviously fraud. Her mom believed it, but then it was a fraud. And so that's going to be interesting. So obviously, right away, that signaled the fraud part even before we got to the answers. I don't know if, is divorce law going to be treated any differently? I'll just try to think about this as being sued about anything. I think the answer is probably yes. I, you're married to Patty, where they lived in California for over a decade. So Don just moves to Florida and files for divorce in Florida but does not serve process. Okay, doesn't say anything about the time limit, so I guess I'll assume that process is still timely because you do have a while to do it, but it's weird that it says did not serve process, and then there's this whole Big Envelope Winnings debacle, and then process was served by her husband with a summons to the Florida divorce proceedings. Is that different than process if you're served with a summons? Almost feels like a later down the line thing. Like, the, because it feels like if you are not served with process to begin with, how could these proceedings have even begun? And then there's a, some, this seems weird, this whole thing seems weird. Not a big fan of Don personally, he moved to Florida to be closer to Trump, I bet. Um, I guess maybe none of that little stuff matters there because Patty is arguing that she's not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida, will she prevail? So you would think, when it comes to marriage, that if you were in California and married for over a decade, you were married there, that's where you lived. I think that California law would kind of be important there, just as a rational person. Now we're doing the, like, he didn't officially divorce her until he moved to Florida. She did not have any contacts with the state of Florida. So, it's almost like she just touched down in Florida. I feel that be enough, really, like you're not really in Florida, but she lands in Florida and then she's served with a summons. Gosh, I don't know. Okay. Maybe the answers will, will help reveal what should be the right thing here. Not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida, that seems right. I mean, she's only just like touched down there and that's it. She hasn't done any business there. She doesn't bought anything there that I can see. She isn't live there. She's just literally like touching the ground of Florida. So it feels like she shouldn't have be subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. That's my instinct, but I don't really know exactly how this will work. So yes, yes is the ones that I agree with. So, will prevail on the idea that she's not subject to personal, kind, question isn't, is she subject, is she not subject, of personal jurisdiction? Essentially, yes, because her presence in Florida was procured by fraud, that doesn't, so would assume for that to be true, it would just be mere presence that would, would give, make you subject to personal jurisdiction, just mere, just being there, and might be right, personal jurisdiction, that could be right, ah, but I don't think the fraud part matters. I, okay, I think A is a no for me because I think if mere presence is all that matters, then fraud is not going to be the key there because, for one, the fraud was with her mom. Patty didn't even have to go. I mean, maybe she could make an argument that she wouldn't have gone but for the fraud or something, but she wouldn't have even had to have gone. And I think that if all that matters is merely just touching the dirt of Florida, I don't think the fraud involved in her mom's thing, especially because it had nothing to do with Don that we know of, I don't think that's going to matter. So I'm going to eliminate A. B, yes, because she did not have minimum contacts with Florida. That's pretty plausible to me, hasn't really done anything with Florida. So B is looking good. C, no, because Patty consented to personal jurisdiction in Florida. Did she consent to personal jurisdiction in Florida? How does one do that? First off, I guess I should have identified, it's been a minute, have I identified what the question is, going to say, not constitutional law, not contracts, I would say this has got to be... Whoa, I thought this was like some sort of civil procedure, but as I look at my categories, I'm seeing only criminal law and procedure, which this, it's not criminal, and federal civil procedure, and it's going to be that because I don't, I don't see what else it would be. It's not, I, jurisdiction, I don't think it's constitutional law, I don't think it's contracts, not evidence, not real property, it's not torts. Yeah, I guess, I guess I'll go with federal civil procedure, even, no, because Patty consented to personal jurisdiction. So do, do you consent to personal jurisdiction just by going there voluntarily? I mean, I think you could make an argument for C, because to go to the state, even though the mom was the one who was defrauded, you still did decide to go. So I think C is plausible. D, no, because Patty was served while physically present in Florida. Well, I really think that's not going to be it because I, it's an attractive distractor because I think that still comes down to being present in Florida. I do not think whether or not she was served while physically present in Florida says anything more than being physically present in Florida is all it takes. And if being physically present is all it takes. Because if she was physically present in Florida and then, I don't know, traveled back to California and then was served, I feel like that would be the same. I don't think where you're served matters, unless D is just referring to the fact that she was physically present in Florida. But the way the bar works, I think D is contingent on being served while there. I don't like D because I think, don't think it turns on where she was served. I think it turns on this personal jurisdiction thing. And I think C, no, because Patty consented to personal jurisdiction in Florida, is, I think, better of the no answers because it's just like she traveled there, essentially. Consenting to personal jurisdiction in Florida is a different thing. I was taking C to mean you consent to personal jurisdiction just by traveling someplace. I thought, I'm sure there are many different ways you could do it, but now that I think about it, there are different ways. So maybe D would be a different thing, but still think the only thing happening here, all related to personal jurisdiction in Florida, is Patty's mere presence there. And so for that reason, I think D doesn't say anything that isn't already covered by C, matters, because again, I don't think it would matter if Patty was served in a different state. I think I'm between B and C, this time I'm going to go with B, I'm going to stick to my guns. I think merely landing somewhere, you, minimum contacts with Florida, another thing I didn't think of, at the time he filed, she had absolutely no contacts of any kind, and so you would think that that would matter, it would be weird to be like, hey, filing a thing, you have absolutely no contact here, but if somehow you, you ever come here, then I can serve you, and then it's all fine, doesn't seem right to me. That you would think that for something to be valid, the contacts and the personal jurisdiction or whatever, you would, that would have to be in place as of when someone files a lawsuit. I would think, like, 'cause, you know, that kind of makes more sense to me in the question. Now that I look at it, it does emphasize exercise, filed for divorce, did not serve process. I still don't know what exactly it means, when it comes to, certain, didn't serve process, but then later did serve a summons related to the, but nothing in the question talks about the timing of service of process. So yeah, says Patty did not have any contacts with the state of Florida, as she had never set foot there a day in her life. When you file for divorce, is less about, like, the marriage, and it's more like, like, I am essentially suing you for a divorce, and so you have to, like, go to that other person? I'm trying to think, like, if she wanted to file for divorce from Don, would she have to go to Florida? Is it because, no, they lived together, he had the contacts here for sure, since they lived there for a decade. So I think I'm pretty solid on it. I know that was some unclear thinking, but I'm just trying to cover my bases here. Between B and C, B was yes, because she did not have minimum contacts in Florida, and C, no, because Patty consented to personal jurisdiction in Florida. I think C is possible, just because maybe voluntarily flying there, like booking the travel and going, and you touch down in Florida voluntarily, might be consenting to personal jurisdiction. So C is plausible, but I'm going with B for a variety of reasons. Final answer. Maybe the main one being, when he, at the time he filed, she had absolutely no contacts. And I feel like that is more important than just, like, when you get served something. So that's gonna be final answer. If you'd like to play along and put joy into mine and Heather's hearts, or sorrow, depending on your answers, go to reddit.com/r/openargs. If you're not a patron... if you're a patron, go to patreon.com/law. And if you are a patron, do both. That's the best way to do it. A little insider tip. And we can't wait to read your answers and do much rejoicing.

0:49:04 Heather: They bring us so much joy. Me,

0:49:06 Thomas: Yeah, do we need to give them their daily dose of shame? And make sure you all play along, shame on those who don't. No, it's been great, it's been great lately. Thanks so much to everyone who has played, and can't wait to be had again by this bar exam. We'll see, Heather, I'll be on pins and needles until next week.

0:49:23 Heather: Too well, thank you. Hey.

0:49:27 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:49:36 Thomas: Now there's only one thing left to do, which is to thank our patrons, the amazing patrons at patreon.com/law, who make the show happen truly, who make it so I can hire folks like Heather and Matt, Olivia doing the social media over there to help us out. It's really important to the show, to make it happen. Thank you so much. Got some new supporters to thank. Thank you, Ahmad Riyad and Pokemod97. Thank you so much for signing on. I hope you enjoy it. Ooh, I didn't even say, we're also recording a lot of awful movies in a moment, like right after I'm done recording this. And that's, of course, a benefit you can only get on patreon.com. Hope you folks enjoy it. And now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats, who are the geniuses, the amazing individuals who are at that $5 level and above for at least a month. They have my eternal love and gratitude, and they get a shout-out every week. Let's start with Goatseus Maximus. Could you rephrase that in the form of a cheeseburger? Not bad. We'll see who the winner of the name change of the week is this time. Michelle is a huge fan of your voice. I'm going to assume that's about someone else, but if it's about me, that's very nice. But I assume, is their Patreon of, maybe they mean of everyone's voice, like, make your voice heard. Diversify your evil portfolio.

0:50:47 Thomas: Yeah. Oh boy. Judy Hanrahan. Stare Decisis has gone into hospice. Is she talking about me? Logomancer. Sex and gender are different things and people should stop using them interchangeably. Apprentice of Adventure. Jesse D. Myers. Cavalry. Unfrozen caveman lawyer. Justice is a dish best served with cold hamburgers. What is a process, and how much are you, boo? I think I've neglected to say that was last week's obvious winner, I hope that was clear. Nick Fish. A Negative Phenomenon. McDonald's doesn't hire felons. You gotta fight for your right to ex parte. Jaysank.

0:51:25 Thomas: I'm going to leave my attempt to do this in because that was so good. How many shits would a dipshit skip if a dipshit could skip shits?

0:51:35 Thomas: Testy's Interpreter. E.T., man, we got some great ones this week. Oh, great, now I have to go back to changing my name every month. Thomas Freeman. Cajunkilla. Fraud Fishy Hates Everything. Chris Simpson, love the extra episodes. Check out the Queer and Cryptography Conference at cryptography.lgbt. Liberal Zone Guns 2, support root cause mitigation, not ineffective gun control. Not a lawyer, but I play one in court. I give up on funny names, I'm just Leo G for now. J.D. Vance looks like the Unabomber, dressed up for family court. This isn't a patron name, and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think legal eagle is so handsome. Mark Schultz. Hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. The Cincinnati Kid. Bob Loblaw's Law... Podcast. Philly Basement Bar is knocking doors for Harris, you should too. Edgy Veggie. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. Baltakatei. Philip Kizer. Guy Chapman, the solutions archaeologist. Something as simple as a, something as simple as small books, that's it, wow, that's tying together a few things. Oh, God Awful Movies, go check that out, Lydia and I were on God Awfulness, God Awful Movies, and that's what the small books is a reference to, and that was the funniest thing ever. Great show. God Awful Movies. Go check it out. 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. Malcolm the Dragon, the precious variant. FRED R GROOTHUIS. Big Easy Blasphemy. RhondaTheDork.com. Chris Waltrip. Mitchell. And still our winner, but not for long, possibly, Buy Felicia is creeping up. Yep, it's a real one, and one, a, in that situation, to make kind of a sports reference. All right, thank you so much, patrons, you really are amazing, uh, from the bottom of my heart, should try to be more like you all. I'll see you for what I imagine might be a tense rapid response Friday, given that the election is way too effing close right now. Oh boy. But we all need to come together in this moment and be there for each other for at least, you know, a week, if not more. I'll see you then.

0:53:38 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.

0:53:55 Thomas: Got us again, but you didn't get second chance Thomas Bar... Thomas Bar Exam Question, you didn't give Thomas a second chance Bar Exam, uh, company, what is it, Second Chance, no, you didn't get Thomas's Second Chance Law Firm, that, going to just learn the feet stuff.