A Law for Christmas, and a Happy New Year!

Transcript

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

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:57 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1106. I'm Thomas Smith, and I'm joined by Lydia Smith. How's it going?

0:01:05 Lydia: Hello, I'm here. Happy New Year.

0:01:07 Thomas: New Year! We celebrate having too much work and trying to get it all done.

0:01:12 Lydia: Our New Year's Eve countdown.

0:01:13 Thomas: Yeah. Don't have a FashWatch for you this week, and on this anyway, but we do, we will tell you that Fash Watch, doozy watch programming will be on Serious Inquiries only, because we're doing something a little more science-y because it's HHS and it's, What are the other acronyms?

0:01:31 Lydia: So it's Health and Human Services. So we're talking FDA. We're talking CDC. We're talking NIH, etc., etc. Surgeon General.

0:01:38 Thomas: See, she knows what she's talking about because she could remember all those letters. I couldn't. So HHS is the broader category. Ah, gotcha. That's over on Serious Inquiries Only. We're going to do here is we got to, of course, get the answer to not last week's, but now the weeks before T3B questions. So we're gonna go through that with Heather, of course. And get the new question. We're gonna do the usual shout outs. We are going to shout out our patrons later on. Lydia will be there for that.

0:02:02 Thomas: But I also wanted to stick in a bit of the lot awful movies that we did. It was A Law for Christmas. And I have here on the line, a victim of A Law For Christmas, Lydia Smith. Badly injured are you from this movie?

0:02:16 Lydia: God. Did we have, like, workers' compensation policy at this job? Oh, my

0:02:21 Thomas: I can't comment on, sorry, you're right. This is ongoing litigation that I cannot comment on. I'm being being sued by my own wife for having to, having to watch this movie.

0:02:28 Lydia: I'm not doing well. I'll say that. Twice.

0:02:31 Thomas: Yeah, it was, she did. It was so, boy, those damages. Sorry, I can't comment. This is bad. It's going to be in Discovery.

0:02:31 Lydia: I watched it twice. Yep.

0:02:39 Thomas: Shit. It was real bad. But and I had fun going through it. Again, it was a law for Christmas. Was there any law? Find out. We'll see. Was their Christmas? A lot of it. Yeah, there was a lot of Christmas. Was there terrible? Yes, it was very terrible. So we're going to give you a little preview here. And just a reminder that Lotawful Movies is at that second tier and above on Patreon. So if you'd like to hear the whole thing, go to patreon.com/law and subscribe and pledge at that $2 level and above. Right. So I hope you enjoyed that. Then of and shout outs after and our usual break we'll get to it

0:03:16 Clip: Well, hello, everyone. Welcome to Lotawful Movies 6, 1006, I guess, with the numbering scheme. We're here to collectively kill ourselves. I'm Thomas. That over there is real life, former, the corpse of real life attorney, Matt Cameron. How are you doing? I think this might be a murder -suicide. I owe you all an apology. Yeah. Maybe you want to start with killing me, probably. Yeah, that's probably a good bet. This one's on me. Me and uh murder victim uh victim number three lydia smith how's it going yeah it's a christmas miracle I'm still alive honestly like this I watched it twice folks this is incredibly this is oh boy we watched why a law for christmas because I want the show to be organized I believe that we have been catfished I think that's what happened because this was a law for christmas and we're like perfect it's exactly what we need it's law it's christmas it's the proper month of the year that we want to do that in and there's there's no fucking law there's the at least the one redeeming quality of this is that we can curse on this show that will help us get through it there's like a one a titular law is there oh they're trying to yeah I guess they're trying to pass something is that would you call that a law well in this universe we don't pass was or there's no congress I think we're maybe in an alternate timeline there is a ministry department though yes so I will tell you have you guys figured out what the deal is with this movie because I figured it out really I think so I think well we'll see if we're on well let me let me give my guesses first and you can tell me so I feel like these things are uh some sort of money laundering scheme usually or something um but here's why I think this one is like I worry that this this is real you know like I that's my first instinct with these is like this is not a real movie this pretend somebody's pulling a stunt but this thing is two fucking hours and 21 minutes you didn't need to do that you didn's you didn'T need to you're we get it we get the shtick you make the world's worst fucking movie it's it's reminiscent of the hallmark ones where a big town big city person woman comes down to the country and realizes she shouldn't value anything except up this guy or whatever, you know, the normal crap in the spirit of Christmas, but it's two hours and 20 minutes. They could have done this in 15 minutes, but at least, you know, maybe 80 minutes to, to make a movie. Why is it so long? They must've, this must be a genuine effort. I don't know. Are you saying they should have cut the part where she just watches the jet come in or should maybe they cut the cart where they tell the entire Christmas story? Do you really want to lose that? Yeah. I mean, you've never heard that before. The Jesus one? I mean it gave them goosebumps. Okay. That's why they had to keep it. Never heard it told that way there is a key to understanding this entire movie there's one fact you need to know and that is that the wesley brothers uh who are really uh taking it upon themselves to make it a thing that they're the wesLEY brothers uh they are both german and their primary language is german and they live in germany so that helps that's a start that actually helps a little bit now I will say now if that had been written entirely by germans I would maybe start to forgive them a little. I'm never going to forgive anybody for participating in this movie. Yeah, the problem is the people who are in the movie speak English, and they should have said something. They should have had some questions about the script. Yeah, all of it. But the script was co -written not just by Joshua and Simon Wesley, but by someone named Jeffrey Wilson, who appears to be an author who lives in Florida, who presumably is an American who understands how America works, which this movie does not. Not at all. Not true. Can't be true. There's no possible way it's true. This is the funniest.

0:06:57 Clip: Look, no one knows anything, I guess. Everyone's ignorant. That's why we have opening arguments to try to teach some people some stuff, I guess. But this is extreme. If I asked Arlo and Phoebe vaguely, how do you think the government works? I think they would get closer than this movie does. That was my thought before I realized who had actually written this movie. I was like, this was written by children. This is just a prank. Like actual children wrote this. I don't mean like baby brain adults. I mean like, you know, kids. But no, very young people wrote it. It's amazing. Yeah. Yeah. I also want to say, if you go to their website, their website is also amazing. And they, Jeff Wilson, who was a co -writer of this movie, also is in this movie as an actor. Also, his daughter is in the movie. And he is quoted on their website. The Wesley brothers, well, it says the Wesley bros, not only have a keen eye for the art of film, but also proved they are masters of storytelling. Jeffrey Wilson, New York Journal bestselling author. Well, they're telling his story, so of course. Of course it's a master. Yeah. I just want to read his biography very quickly. Jeffrey Wilson is an award -winning supernatural thriller author from Florida. Before he became a best -selling author, he worked as an actor, trauma and vascular surgeon, firefighter, naval officer, paramedic, diving instructor, and jet pilot. That's a fake. Again, it's almost a kid made up a bio. I hope that he's better at flying jets. That's too many things. He's still alive. This is a fake guy. This can't be real. He can't exist. Yeah. But if he writes the way he flies jets and the other way around, I don't know where he's in trouble. This is just chat GPT. And then they're like, well, chat GPG can do all those things. So that means this person. But this isn't even good enough for chat. No, no. This is really bad. And so they are. We'll we'll get lots of this. They are very, very Christian. And on their Web site, they also have a section that says for actors and crew. And so you click on it and it lists their core values. They have a Christian set policy to your God. We make films to evangelize, but the set is not part of it. Supernatural unity and fighting with prayer helps to fulfill the mission as a team. That's why we have a 100 % Christian set policy. Oh, my God. Sounds tough, but that is how the industry is. Are you allowed to do that? No.

0:09:09 Clip: It also says that actors are not allowed to kiss. As producers, our actors are our responsibility for the time of the shoot. As shepherds, we have a God -given responsibility to care for our sheep much like a pastor. Actors are long gone from their spouses and devils try to attack. Long nights on set and the intense practicing between a man and woman is irreplaceable. Oh, my God. I'm looking at this and they did this like this. These fucking dorks. The way they have it, like, no actors kissing. Christian set policy. Like, these are bonuses. Like, These are features of their production. I know. Thoughts on the font? Since you're looking at the website, I would like to know what you think. Fake typewriter font. Do not like. Yeah. Don't care for it. I do like the sans serif they're using, though. That is actually a nice, bold sans serf. Okay. Okay. All right. But also, perfection honors God. It's just, that's super fashy. Yeah. Folks, if they're listening and have been in, like, the ex -evangelical space, might actually know or have heard of Joshua Wesley. He made headlines because he wished his girlfriend a happy 18th birthday. Yeah. Finally, 18. 18. So Matt sent you a picture in the Slack if you want to check it out. Oh, my God. This seems familiar to me. Yeah. It was a meme, briefly. Yeah, but this can't be real, though, right? There's no... Oh, yeah. Oh, it is. It's 100 % real. No, this can be... Finally 18. Can't be Real. Nope. Nope, that's fake. I can't describe with words what you mean to me and what kind of person you are. You've been my best friend for four years. Nope. Four years. Nope. This is fake. Finally 18, yeah, I don't... I... No, so... So this can't be real. You're not telling me this is real. You cannot tell me. I thought this was fake. I really I saw this and I was like, that's a great parody. You can't. I don't believe you. This can't been real. No, that is one of the men who made this movie. No. This is who he is. And she worked on the movie as well, you know. Set director, I think. How old was he? So he was 20 when she was 14. um and then uh but there there were some posts that I saw on reddit that um said he was actually her camp counselor when she was 12 yeah and that that's how they first met and then they started dating when she Was 14 and he was 20 which is legal in germany I do legal in german yeah age of consent in germanya is 14 yeah yeah oh my god I hate to point that out maybe they should should fix that yeah maybe that seems that seems too young to me yeah yep as long as both parties are under 21 uh one of them can be 14 just there's no good version of that story I think it's not healthy finally 18 what yeah how is this not a joke I thought with the big 18 balloons finally 18 I can't I know you've been my best friend for four years that's there has to be a joke you can't I don't think so. So in the same way, obviously, that like they are, in their opinion, serious filmmakers. It's a Christian set. Actors aren't allowed to kiss, but like they're very, very serious about this. This was their first big feature with a budget, apparently, but they are very active. Define a budget. Budget, yeah. Like $80 ,000, I think. Was it? That's what they were trying to raise. I found a YouTube video where he's raising money for this and talking about what a great movie it's going to be. Oh my gosh, amazing. And he said, we don't have like $50 ,000 to $80 ,000 that we're going to need for this. This movie is a ripoff at the price of free. Yes. It's costing me money to watch. It's a 1 .1 out of 10 on IMDb. Some gems in here. Genuinely one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm not sure what went wrong with this film, but it's genuinely one of the worst films I've seen. Yeah, because it had such a recipe for success. How did they fumble this ball? Created a review account just to say how bad it was and to warn Mourn people against watching it. Was this you? You have to tell us. No, it wasn't me. My favorite, God Deserves Better.

0:13:09 Clip: I don't know about that. Oh, that could be. God Deserve Better. Yeah, this really did end up being a god -awful movie. We actually didn't totally know from the title. I mean, it does, again, it's a law for Christmas. We thought we're not trying to encroach, you know, we're not trying encroaching on their territory, but it turned out to just be God. When you say it that way, it sounds like a Muslim Christmas movie. A law for Christmases. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It is L .A .W., just so everyone understands. There is a law somewhere in here. Actually, Savannah Latham, the star, who I feel a little bit bad for. A little bit mad for. She clearly. I agree. She was young. She wanted a job. They offered a lead. But she does not list this in her IMDb biography. It is, of course, on her IMdb because, you know, it has to be. But it's not something she's playing up at all. She knows. I don't know. Perhaps. And maybe this is part of, like, the contract or something that she signed. But she did, like a 17 -minute interview on their YouTube page. That's probably contractual. And, yeah, at the time where she said it was really important to her that she do a movie combining, like, the two things that she loves the most, like God and Christmas.

0:14:10 Clip: But she was actually— Terrible scripts and terrible acting, the 2 favorite things. She was actually a—she was in Lost a million years ago. Yeah, I saw that. She was a little kid on Lost. A little kid in Lost. She ended up getting sick and then went away from acting for a very long time. So this was her first movie back in the acting space, yeah. It's so bad. Chase Giacomo, I do want to point out, is playing a graduate of Harvard Law School and is, in fact, a graduate of Harvard law school. Just a fun fact there. He practiced in trust and estates. Don't use a name from this movie as though that's something. Oh, yeah. Chase Gacomo. No, I know. Nobody knows who that is. You got to say the citizen who the bystander they found whose name is this. He's not an actor. There's not real. That's true. He does have that look, though. I will say he looks like a Hallmark actor. I've never seen a single Hallmark movie, but he looks like he should be in any number of movies and he seems to be pretty clearly gay to me unless there's oh no he's very married oh I mean well he's christian so yeah exactly okay so we still don't still uh don't know on that uh we'll find out so he was actually in the military and then um went to law school after the militaryand then practiced uh in trust and estates law and then something he felt calling to him I'm sure from god or whatever that he needed to act and so he um started doing my whole life a couple years ago okay roll I was born to do this you know what is acting by pretending you're something you're not well I've got a lot of practice in that I don't know if he's the best actor it's hard to really say they're no good sorry what no one's good in this movie oh no wait the kid the kid is the best actor the kid okay the kid we actually said this the kid Kid is not bad. In terms of kid actors, that's hard. It's very hard to do. Lydia and I both were like, this little girl nailed it to the extent that one could in this atmosphere. She's the daughter of the guy who co -wrote it, Jeffrey Wilson. That's his kid. Good work, Jeffrey. Talent skips a generation.

0:16:12 Clip: All right. Should we dig into this? I think we're done here.

0:16:19 Clip: But before we get to the plot, I just wanted to note, I'm sure you already noticed the character names and how delightful they are. Yes. Really? Hold on. I hadn't detected the brilliant thematic tie -ins of the names. It's really subtle. Went above my head. Yeah. Yeah. Gloria Winters is our star. Yeah. Gloria and Winters. We have Christian Baker, which isn't, you know, he's Christian. I'm pretty sure in GAM movies there has been literally the character Christian Baker at least twice. Like, I am pretty sure. And then we got a character named Rudolph, because why not? You know, it's a very popular name these days. Carol, Christmas Carol. And Noelle is the little girl. Noelle's the daughter. You don't have to do this. And then the very first act that she takes in the movie is firing a guy named Nicholas just before Christmas. I thought that was subtle. And then Carol has a friend named Mercy that we never meet, but we have to know her name because it's Mercy. Let me set up really very, very quickly. Glory Winters, she's horrible. Horrible. And we get this like parody of her talking on the phone and yelling at somebody on the phone. That's at a minute if you want to play that too, because that really kind of sets the stage for who this person is. Okay, hold on. I just need to, I need to say a small prayer, meditate.

0:17:32 Clip: What do you mean you won't have the documents ready by the end of this year? We need the approvals. It's a critical step for the modernization of the subway system. Of course it is important 2 .4 million people are relying on us no no no I don't care you need to get this done now christmas is a day like any other you can take a day off once the documents are finalized with attitude you will never succeed I want to talk about the documents already in a few sentences they've set up a quantum impossibility of what this is supposed to be like I can't even the what what it gets worse what yeah it's already so good and it does get worse what entity are you what job is this yes what are these papers you're not you're not gonna have who could who what kind of papers could these be that one person is in charge charge of getting them done for whatever you like to know the fuck this is matt so she walks straight into the office and her assistant tells her immediately that a new position is open in the ministry department and gloria says she'll just take it she doesn't care what it is apparently it's a cabinet position in the ministry department from the vice president yeah let's not reveal it we'll tease it a position inthe ministry department everybody we'll see what what that ends up being Pin in that. Yes. What could you think of the dumbest fucking thing?

0:19:07 Clip: So she's getting ready to present on this thing regarding the documents, I guess. I guess? And asks her assistant, Jill, to send Nicholas to her. And this is 2 .30. So we're to believe that these documents are, like, crucially important to a massive project. And she's asked this guy to get them done. I can't look at this guy again. Can I turn off my screen? Look away. He's so weird. Good morning, man. You asked for me yes please take a seat I'm just barfing from I can't there's no what is it about bad acting it's the worst it's uncanny I'm sorry I forgot the documents you asked before it'll take just a second I'll be right back not necessary anymore what do you mean oh do you have a new job assignment for me I'm so sorry to tell you but I have to let you go your work performance the requested efficiency anymore what are you serious yeah I'm on her side on this man like what are he talking about he comes in here he doesn't have the things she specifically asked for and yelled about on the phone yeah and it's like apparently vitally important to a massive project and he's like oh I forgot him and she's like doesn't matter oh am I doing a new thing like what kind of idiot would be like oh okay so that thing was really important I don't need him I'll just do a different work no dummy yeah you're fired the only thing that makes sense in the whole movie. I will say, I thought when I first started watching the first five, ten minutes of this movie, I was sure that she's like a big firm lawyer. I thought she was supposed to be working at a firm. But she is apparently a civil servant of some kind. We don't know what department or ministry she's in. In my notes, I put legally Scrooge because I thought that's what we were going to get. Like, it's a legally blonde. Like I was convinced that, OK, she's gonna be a lawyer and we just have to wait to find out what it is exactly. But it doesn't make any sense at all. No, because you can't actually fire people. No, we never find out because I don't even think she She is a public servant at this point. Like she might be. I think that's probably what they're going for. But it also sounds like they're a contractor maybe with the city. It's a million different contradictory things. None of it. It's also in D .C., but her project is to modernize the New York subway system. With Wi -Fi. With Wi‑Fi. Which is a good idea. As long as they get the Wi‑Fi paperwork done. It's going to help 2 .4 million people. They've got to get the Wifi documents in or they can't do that. I feel like it'd be more than 2 .5. I actually also feel like that per day. Department of Transportation, I guess, maybe. Who knows? It's not worth thinking about. They didn't think about it. Why should we think about? It's the only interesting thing in this movie, though, is trying to untangle the web of what they think any of this is. Yes. It's quite an artifact. Yeah. Yeah. Because before I realized it was a German thing, and even now as I realize it's a German thing, I was really thinking about this as an artifact of what MAGA thinks big city people and politics are like, because it's just so completely out of touch with everything. Thing she gives the presentation and the pitch do you want to hear the pitch 340 is where I just listen the whole movie no well no the whole beginning is pretty interesting my third one no I'm not doing that okay it was a pleasure working with you ma 'am mary chris hey man I don't feel sorry for you you suck next on the agenda okay here we go Gloria Winters. This is the best. This is her pitch meeting. Thank you. In the government. As previously discussed, we predict our New York district election results to increase by up to 12 % as soon as we introduce citywide high -speed Wi -Fi in the subways. What? Today, I received the quote concerning this execution. A project this enormous in size will obviously come at quite some cost, but will result in tremendous benefits in terms of political capital gains. While a hundred million dollars might seem rather high, as usual, I have a solution on how to fund this project. When only using 10 % of the upcoming AR23F tax reform for farmers and combining the already existing discretionary funds, all costs will be covered. What? Do you think the farmers are okay with using their money for the subways? They don't need to know. I'm not sure we can keep that a secret. We need approval for the funds. We will keep it a secret until it is installed, and as soon as it is, people will be way too happy to complain and stand up for some random farmers. And my team will take care of the applications and approvals. Okay, not bad. The same guy is like, all right, sounds good. You've convinced me. I was a skeptic. Apparently, according to IMDB, that person who asked the question is supposed to be a congressman. What? Yeah, I know. This is so confusing. This is all I want to talk about the rest of the movie and blah blah blah love story who cares this is the best you know who stands up to give the school system presentation Josh Wesley the one who said finally 18 to his girlfriend oh no really yeah that's what they decided to are you envisioning this as a model for other cities too of course it won't be cheap but the benefits will outweigh the cost thank you for the presentation good job in research I am a congressman Next presentation. Next presentation? Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about the school system in 2030.

0:24:26 Clip: That's it. That's the joke. The school system. The school in 2030? What? From a groomer. Yeah. Cool. Yeah. Yeah. It's like, it's my specialty. I spend a lot of time around schools.

0:24:38 Clip: So confusing. All right. Well, I don't get it. I think we're done here. I feel like we're going to say that after every scene. It's just. That is. But truly, in terms of things that are interesting about this, it's this scene. It's amazing. You can't, but because they did, they put work into like some of the words. Well, the discretionary fund. And they're like, but none of that is anything. Not real. Yeah. You all heard that, right? Yeah. 12 % election results. Yeah. Yeah. No, it is nonsense. Just word selling. Absolutely. The next scene actually is also really something. Yeah. The one where she. Oh, yeah. Yeah, so we find out that she's been appointed. Oh, we're going to find out the job, guys. We're hired. Yeah. It turns out. So remember the job she said yes to sight unseen? It was like, please apply. And I don't know, what does that even mean to have your assistant say yes to a job? Like, did she? I don'T know what that's supposed to mean. But we're gonna find out what that is. And this is supposed to look like a press conference, but it's just a meeting. It's also the co -workers that are from the previous scene. Gloria, you got it. The vice president, James Burlington, wants to appoint you. The vice President James Burlington. The announcement ceremony is tomorrow morning at 8 a .m. Don't you want to know the new position you're accepting? Nope. I don't really care. It'll be a surprise. All right. Well, have a good night. Good morning. It's good to see all of you here. It's another office meeting with the same people. Same people. But this is Vice President James Berlington. We all know political views require constant change, and as political views change, our country does the same. While considering the right person to fill this unique administrative position, it has forced us to take a look at the stereotypes that have led this department in the past. And in doing so, we realized positive change is necessary. Our goal is to create diversity in our various departments, starting with the Department of Agriculture today. Day. We feel strongly that by choosing a leader who is on the cutting edge, someone who is not only creative, but also innovative, our nation will soar like never before, putting our farmers back in business. I myself have worked with her on several occasions on some very successful projects. It is with great honor and great pleasure to welcome our new Secretary of Agriculture, Gloria Winters. The look on her face. Secretary of Agriculture. Yeah. Appointed by the vice president? Appointed to be the vice president. What are you talking about? When I was putting out all my notes on this, I was like seeing like I was thinking, OK, this is gonna be at the White House, right? Like at least. That doesn't even make sense. But no, but no, they're still at her office. He's announcing it to her co -workers and this random congressman, I guess. And then I thought that like, oh, the farmers, she was about to like stiff them and all the money they were supposed to get back so I was like setting up the conflict I was like okay does that ever matter no never never specifically literally never never

0:27:50 Clip: So they she's she's very unhappy no this can't exist we need a police force that does that when they see this they're like no more can this happen you can't make things like this it should not be allowed I don't know how but this has to put an an end to it we can't you're in a conference room and you're announcing that the the secretary of agriculture that the vice president what it's not like they got the real vice president just have that be the president what what are you what wait matt question because they say christians only on our movie set and youre like you can't do that can we sue them yeah I asked that a minute ago but yeah no we should apply for a job on this movie yeah I'm serious like yeah yeah take them down No, apply for a job and have American Atheists prominently on your resume. Apply for the job and see what happens. There you go. Or try to get the job first and then mention that you're an atheist and then get fired. Yes, okay. See how it goes. Maybe this is how it works in Germany. Maybe the vice president directly appoints people to cabinet positions. It must be. And also a ministry department sounds very European. Yes. Oh, yeah, absolutely. The ministry department.

0:28:59 Clip: This is the office department. You're looking for the branch department.

0:29:05 Clip: What? Ministry department? So they have a conversation about— Department of Ministry. It's just all the different ministers that are there. Yes. That's just in one department. One department. They talk about that the vice president says, you know, we want to make the Department of Agriculture our flagship department. And that's why— For the country. We are bypassing Senate confirmation, and I am just telling you— And appointing this person who has no idea— Who this is. But what his position is, is that it's not about how we are promoting policy. It's about how we pitch policy. And he says, have you heard of this new social media thing? This movie is from 2023. Well, to be fair, they've been working on it since 2008. I did realize, though, when we were just listening to that, whatever it was, he was this is an attack on DEI is what it is like he's talking about how he has to appoint a diverse candidate. Got it. Right. And if they wanted to make a movie about how she's completely unqualified because she's a DEI hire, I think they did that accidentally. So at least they did a good job on that. Yeah. She gets to work basically. Right? She's looking at the most ridiculous video reel I've ever seen in my life. We have to say what the assignment is. Yeah. So this is the secretary of agriculture. What do you think, everybody? Everybody in your mind what do you think this well you got to have a bunch of meetings and coordinate with the deputy secretary and the heads of the whatever and you got a good phone calls yeah a lot of phone call you probably well first you got get through the senate hearings obviously you got do that right I mean you can't do any of this really before that well we'll assume they're using the vacancies act we're still assume they're gaming that so setting that aside what do you think she's doing well she's gonna make some videos for social media yeah not just videos she's going to make viral videos oh yeah well yeah I don't know why anyone makes any other kind I would just make those yeah I

0:31:04 Clip: I just know, that you are gonna kick that bar's butt, out of here, you know, No.

0:31:09 Thomas: I'm joined by bar exam prep expert, Heather Varanini. How are you doing today?

0:31:15 Heather: Doing great. How are you doing?

0:31:17 Thomas: That depends, as always. That all depends, Heather. How am I doing? Would like to know I did on this question yeah

0:31:24 Heather: And to discover what what level of police state the bar exam expects us to be living in on a day -to -day basis.

0:31:28 Thomas: Oftentimes the bar exam is like no we live in a perfectly reasonable place and then you find that what's happened is that the application of the law has just gotten terrible in this country so it could be that but uh yeah remind us what we're talking about here he's

0:31:41 Heather: We have our friend, police officer Paul, defendant Delilah was involved in the sale of some illegal drugs. He got a valid arrest warrant. He went to her home to execute it. Then he saw the door was open. So, he walked in and he went into her home And then he heard her kind of in the back. Loudly told her to freeze and then he arrested her. So we're trying to figure out if officer, our friend, Paul, I know, I just like to listen. This is my sense of humor is trying to figure out if our neighborhood officer, Paul, probably executed the arrest warrant against, he's

0:32:03 Thomas: Not our friend yeah he just wandered in the house because he's so friendly he's just so he's so friendly and familiar that's why

0:32:19 Heather: And so we're tying to figure out whether or not the execution of the arrest warrants was proper. Away noticed noticed and identified that this was a criminal procedure question. And also, like you said, criminal procedure questions at their heart are constitutional law ones. But you're right, this falls squarely into the criminal law and procedure category. Any time a question deals with things within the Fourth Amendment, that's kind of where they fall. That's where we're at, especially because we know the subtopic here is execution of the arrest warrant. Warrant. Call to question tells us that. Asking us specifically if he properly executed that arrest warrant. I'll explain a little bit more about why. Our Fourth Amendment here tells us it it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And generally unreasonable means warrantless. So that's what we're looking at today. Going to have to walk through a littlebit of how we get through this question and some of the rules that we follow in order to determine whether or not we have this warrantless or seizure. We have to look to see whether or Not there was government conduct, right, the government has to be involved in the conduct in order for this to trigger our analysis here, publicly a paid police count, unsurprisingly, I think, to determine government conduct. So our friendly neighborhood police officer, Paul, opening the door to Delilah's home to execute that arrest warrant does count.

0:33:29 Thomas: Jackbooted thug paul you know you do your version I'll do my version one

0:33:34 Heather: You've made my day today. I'm sorry. All right. So we have the government conduct. Got that down. So we've got government conduct here. Then so the next thing we look at to see if at, if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, that's the kind of phrase that's used. See if that exists. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The area searched or the thing seized? It protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy into a constitutionally protected, again, right? Here we're really talking about a having a reasonable expectations of privacy in their own home from seizure or arrest by the government, right. Here, she's being arrested in her own home. I think, well, I'll just ask you, what do you think? Think that it's reasonable to expect

0:33:56 Thomas: Would think I think so I mean the argument could be well the door is ajar but I don't think that flies I think that I think that's nothing so yes I think you have privacy reasonable expectation of privacy in your bedroom and jackbootted thugs of the the state of Trump's state Trump's police force that Heather's such a big fan of they're not allowed to do this hopefully well

0:34:41 Heather: Exactly right. You noted in the bedroom, right? This is the quintessential place where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy to

0:34:48 Thomas: Unless you want us to have a same -sex marriage or an abortion or anything like that but but yeah sure yeah

0:34:54 Heather: I could talk about that all day. Yes, you're absolutely right. Yeah, So we've got that here. We've got government conduct. We've got that reasonable expectation of privacy. And then the next thing we've got to just about is whether the search or the seizure was reasonable. And again, this is about warrantless or otherwise. And we've going to kind of discuss two things here. First, we've been to talk about probable cause. The good thing here is we don't have to talk about this too much because the fact pattern actually tells us in the first sentence that our friendly neighborhood police officer, that he had probable cause to believe that Delilah was involved in the sale of illegal drugs.

0:35:24 Thomas: It was racial profiling that's it and yet Heather's gonna sit here and defend this yeah

0:35:31 Heather: I'm actually glad that you said that, and I'll tell you why. Two things. So first and foremost, a lot of times when I'm working with students, this is a place where sometimes I'll get the question wrong, because it's not uncommon for, so I work a lot really socially just as mine and students, and obviously I am one myself, despite what you might think. What happens is a lot times we'll fight the question. Question. And so somebody might think like, oh, I don't really know. But the fact pattern here tells you he had probable cause.

0:35:50 Thomas: Probable cause yeah I at least got that right I was like all right I'll go with that yeah

0:35:59 Heather: I'm so glad that you did because you don't want to get hung up here or overthink because if it's telling that to you, just, it is what it is for the purposes of the question. So we don't have to worry about whether or not that exists because it does. Yeah? The next thing we have to look at is the warrant requirement, right? There has to be a valid warrant, right? So we see in the next line that Paul obtained a valid arrest warrant. So we actually don't have to worry about whether or not the warrant is valid here because it tells us it's the same thing, right? Fact pattern says that Paul had one, so he had one. Not an issue. What happens here is that we can start to look at some of our answer choices. So I'll look at answer choice D that says, yes, because Paul went to Delilah's home where he had a reasonable belief that Delilah would be there. So the reasonable Belief, it actually pertains to the probable cause portion. Cause requires that the reasonable officer believes that a suspect committed a crime or is planning to do so, or that they'll find evidence of a crime if they search the area. Actually undergirds the probable Cause.

0:36:56 Thomas: It's redundant you're saying no

0:36:57 Heather: Necessarily because it's part of the probableCause, but it's there and it and it has to exist. Other thing to kind of note here is that reasonable belief isn't the only thing that the officer needs to get in that door, right? Belief by itself isn't going to get the police officer through that door in a constitutionally protected way.

0:37:15 Thomas: He also needs to be enabled by voters who put trump into office I hear you the complacency of the public nah you're right he needs another there

0:37:27 Heather: Part of the reason that this answer, it's true that he did have the reasonable belief. He did have that. We know that. But that's not enough to actually get him to get in there in way that gets him to validly execute the warrant as well. So that's Not Enough. D is wrong because it's not Enough to really get him through that valid execution. D's out. So a valid arrest warrant, which gives him the right to arrest her in her home. It's true that he does have a valid rest warrant, right? Is the valid arrest warrant, is that enough? Is that enough to give him the Right to arrest Her? Started talking about execution of the warrant, you to talk about this not get an ounce rule. When you were going through the question, and it's true, a valid arrest warrant, we have to have that, right? And hopefully this will explain, I'll explain this a little bit better. So in order to have an arrest warrant—I'll back up a littlebit—you have to have a valid arrest warrant. But before that, you have to have a probable cause. And before that you have to have the reasonable belief. So we have these steps to get us there, to get us through the door. After the valid arrest warrant, we also have to have a valid execution. Although he does have the the valid arrest warrant, he has to execute the warrant as well. Almost D to me have the same problem in the sense that they're true, but they're not complete. And they also don't get us to the place that the police officer needs to get at in order to validly execute the warrant. C's out. So let's go move to A, no, because Paul had no consent to enter Delilah's home. So you talked a little bit about the consent and you talked about, you said something about the search warrant. So tell me a little about your thinking around the no consent and the need for the search warrants.

0:37:45 Thomas: Goes my second chance okay yeah I don't know about the search part, um, it it comes comes to arresting Yeah, I thought that it would be kind of silly if if the whole question is about he has a valid arrest warrant, can he essentially go into the house and arrest? Thought consent wouldn't be a good way to do it because then that would just create a like a Looney Tunes situation or something where Delilah is just like, no. Or like a Monty Python sketch, maybe sounds more like that. No, wait, I can't come in. No, you can't. Oh, and then they build a jail around the house or something. Like that, but.

0:39:05 Heather: So the arrest. Is the arrest warrant for, or if not to get the officer or the government person through the door, the government through the door essentially. That's exactly it. Consent's not needed here, right? Arrest warrant here acts as the consent essentially, right. So definitely not A is out because again, that's what the warrant's for. So he did a great job eliminating that. So that leaves us with B, our answer. No, because Paul failed to knock and announce his presence before entering, right? You identified what the rule is here. Knock and announce is the way in which officers must execute the warrant before entering a home, right? They have to knock and announce their presence, right, executing that warrant. So you did a great job. So yes on B. Yay.

0:40:13 Thomas: You're saying is I'm on a two question streak. Holy crap.

0:40:18 Heather: You mentioned the no knock warrant. So there's some exceptions that allow officers to not knock and announce prior to their entry into the home. They can, as you mentioned, obtain no -knot warrants. And they did so in those limited instances that you mentioned, in which, for example, it's dangerous to the officer or to an identified individual or some other individuals, or if there's an instance in which they're concerned about the destruction of evidence. Neither of those situations are available here. We're not worried about the destruction of evidence because even here, it just says the fact pattern says, hide the drugs, hide the drug. We don't worry about her destroying them. We just worry about hiding them. That can be fixed. And there's nothing in the fact to suggest that our friendly officer, Paul, is worried about being harmed by her. If that was the case, there would be some facts here about about a weapon such as a gun or a knife, and we don't have either of those situations. So you are right to say here that the knock and ounce does apply and that the no knock warrant is not an issue here.

0:41:15 Thomas: Right. Well, holy crap. I nailed it, everybody. I'm so excited. Yay! Despite the fascist enthusiast over there trying to make this okay, it wasn't okay, everybody. It came to the rescue. Have to knock before you do all this fascism so

0:41:28 Heather: Well, Yes. And I actually was surprised because a lot of the times with criminal law and criminal parole questions, it's not uncommon for the government to come out on top. This is one of the questions I've seen recently in which the government loses. So surprise.

0:41:42 Thomas: At least in our hypotheticals we've created, the government can sometimes lose. In reality what happens is they go, not gunshots, like so they do fast, it's like, well, I knocked and announced. That important, more importantly than any social justice issue, I got a bar exam question right, which is the most, this is what we're here to do, so all Right, let's go see if anyone else got this right on blue sky and reddit and patreon. Awesome, don't we start with Reddit and tell us who our big winner on reddit.com slash r slash open args is this week.

0:42:12 Heather: Sandwich time again.

0:42:13 Thomas: It feels like it's always language time in a good way.

0:42:15 Heather: A good way. Sandwich time says I'm going with B. I think the Fourth Amendment applies here. And having police creep into your house unannounced seems unreasonable, even with a warrant. Yes. The fact that the door was open and therefore Officer Paul did not force entry gives me pause, but I still think he needs to announce. Correct. Correct, uh, and sandwich time also said, I admit I'm swayed by the answer Thomas gave since he is one to zero by my count, which is undefeated. Yay.

0:42:43 Thomas: What? Right, and uh, one reply on blue sky, hey everyone, blue sky, follow open args and look for that post. I think we need to do a better job of standardizing the T3B post. We'll figure, we'll, we're going to do that. We'll, fortunately the one person, Safander, who answered, got it right. Safander says, B, you have to get a specific no-knock warrant to go in without announcing yourself. If I recall correctly, but you don't need consent to enter the property. If you have a warrant, that's what the warrant is for so That nails it, um, you know, all we needed was one on blue sky when it's going to be that quality of answer, so Well done and then most importantly our winner on patreon.com slash law, this is where to really get the best quality, Heather, and our, I save our shelf shout-outs for patreon.com slash law, just really top quality stuff. Dr., this one wrong, actually. A lot of people got it wrong. A lot said, I'm seeing all kinds of answers. Got a few correct answers on Patreon. I'm going to shout out a short and simple one. Dr. Clerk. Thomas nailed it. B is the answer. And the question deliberately omits any mention of suppressing evidence because that's not available for a violation of the knock and announce rule. So what exactly does Dr. Clerk mean by that?

0:43:58 Heather: So this is actually good because somebody mentioned this on Reddit as well. For a lot of stuff coming up with the Fourth Amendment, when the government has made an, in some ways, so let's say, for example, when they've made some kind of an error, a lot of what happens is the exclusionary rule will kick in, meaning that that evidence that they find that's a result of their error can't come in at trial. That's the normal remedy. However, when there's a violation of the knock and announce rule, the exclusionary rule does not kick in.

0:44:27 Heather: That's not what happens. If they violate this rule, and they have a valid warrant, there's no remedy unless state law provides one. So

0:44:34 Thomas: Doesn't seem, seem great, okay. Well, Dr. Clark nailed it. They, when, said that I nailed it, even though they nailed it even better. So, thank you so much to our winners. You did amazing, loving the the participation. Like I said, we'll get the blue sky post standardized. Okay, I have thoughts on that, but I think that's what's happening there and I'll make sure to fix that so we get more participation there. But Reddit, tons of participation on Reddit and Patreon and that lone blue sky winner got extra love for being the only answer and a correct one.

0:45:06 Thomas: So with that, congratulations out of the way, it's time to take on another question, another opportunity for people people to play along. Another opportunity for me to either embarrass myself or perhaps continue my improbable streak of two questions. So after this break, question 53. right, Heather, lay it on me.

0:45:47 Heather: Support her assertion, Jenny called the owner of a cafe on the corner where the accident occurred, who testified that, quote, I saw Jenny cross the street for five years, and she has never walked against the red light, end quote.

0:45:52 Thomas: Don't be hearsay or some shit. God damn it. Oh, interesting. Okay. Oh

0:46:03 Heather: Cafe owner's testimony should be, A, excluded, unless the owner actually saw Jenny crossing the street on the day of the accident. B, excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. C, admitted because it is relevant as to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion. D, admitted to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely.

0:46:31 Thomas: And evidence. Okay, so this is evidence, I think. Going to go with that. I believe that's what this is, though it started sort of tortsy, started Jenny is suing Dan, which seems perhaps tortsy, but I think we're solidly in evidence here. So this is testimony. So the dispute, the factual dispute is, did this person cross on a red light or on a green light, essentially? And Jenny wants to have someone, the owner of a cafe who's on the corner where the accident occurred, okay, so that's like, you know, that's kind of relevant, there testimony has happened, normally I feel like these questions are like, should the, you know, judge allow this person to testify, but like, I guess this already happened. I don't think that changes it because I think it's like, they testify and then you could object, you or something, and then it might be excluded. But anyway, the owner testifies, I saw Jenny cross the street for five years and she has never walked against the red light. Should that testimony be excluded or admitted? Those are the questions. We've got two excluded and two admitted. Before looking at those, I think this a tricky one that's hard to remember, which which is obviously why it's a frigging bar question. I think when you are testifying, I know criminally, there's usually a problem with like, can't just testify that this guy sucks. Like we can't just be like, yeah. And he kicked a puppy and he did unrelated. So like, usually don't want to do that. But in the back of my mind, there's something like character evidence. I feel like is a thing. And I think that I, actually now I'm thinking about it in a civil context, I think it's a little different, I think there's a difference between positive and negative. So I think that like, it's one thing to be like, okay, that guy's just crimey. He's bad. We're going to make you think he's bad, but I think it's different when the person is saying, here's some positive character evidence. But now, like, is this character evidence? I'm not entirely sure. It's sort of like a pattern, maybe establishing a pattern. I'm going to try to think, I'm gonna try to take the classic OA approach from all these years and be like, rationally speaking, should it be relevant? Which is not an indication that it will be, but like, I feel like that's what I need to not lose sight of that when it comes to these things. Cause the law is usually the rules anyway on this stuff. What it's trying to accomplish is, is this good? Does it get the jury closer to the truth kind of thing, I think. So if someone comes in and wants to say this person has always crossed on the correct thing, the kind of things that seems like it should be evidence because gives the other side the chance to cross-examine and say, really? Tell me a time you remember. I don't know. It gives a chance for the other side to poke holes in it. Only other thing is, speaking, it is an induction problem. It doesn't mean that on this occasion, something different didn't happen. You know, it doesn't mean that like, oh, well, but this time she was, I don't know, running late for something. Purely prima facie, boy, I'm not sure. I think in a civil context to a like kind of a positive assertion and not a criminal context where you're trying to say this guy's always bad because that's not allowed. I think it is civil. I'm leaning toward this might be admitted. OK, having said that, let's go through the specific answers, see if anything calls out to me. A is excluded unless the owner actually saw Jenny crossing the street on the day of the accident. Okay. So that would mean the only testimony that's allowed along these lines is specific to the event. And you don't get to say, no, but this is the pattern. This is how this person normally acted. Plausible. I think that's a little strict. I don't know. I feel like there's testimony. Feels like character evidence is a thing. I feel like there tends to be testimony that is about, you know, because what if no one saw? I don't know. So I'm not, I don't have a strong yes or no on A, so going to leave it alive for now. B, excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. That's interesting because it almost sounded like what I think is true, but it actually sounded like the, a misstatement. Okay. Sounds like kind of an inverted statement of what I was expecting. Like, I'm wondering if this is one of those like misstatements of the law that is close enough to trick me. Evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. Sound right, evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove, like it sounds close to, I think it would be trying to say is evidence of conduct, someone's character is not prove that they did it on this particular occasion, but the way it's talking, it's like, no, evidence of specific instances of conduct are not admissible to. Here's the thing, I gotta check real quick, sometimes stupidly this can turn, and I mean that stupidly as in it's a tricky, this can turn on like what they're trying to admit it for. Okay, does it tell us? It, so it says to support Jenny's assertion that she was walking across the street when it was a green light for her. It's to support that. So it's to say, to support this, I'm going to have someone testify who's seen me do this a million times. It seems like that's got to be, like, I would lean toward admissible, and I think B, B sounds like, honestly, a little bit word salad. Unless I'm wrong, it sounds like something in there is worded wrong. It doesn't seem quite like the rule I'm thinking of. Excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. Just can't be right. I don't, that can't be right, I think something's wrong there. So I think I'm no on B. If I were to choose excluded, I think I'd lean toward A because A is just in the world of, nope, you're only allowed to have people testify about the specific. You're not allowed to having one say, hey, they always do this, which again in a civil context when you're not talking about criminality, or kind of just, it seems like it should be an admitted answer. So let's go to the admitted one, C and D. C, admitted because it is relevant as to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion. Relevant. Okay. C is strong. I think that's kind of where I've been leaning. Like, yeah, it doesn't prove anything, but like you get to say, hey, no, I mean, I always do this. Here's someone who can say, I always do this. And that's part of the evidence. The other side gets to dispute it. They get to cross-examine, but that gets to be part of the equation, or D, admitted to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely. That's interesting. What's the distinction there? The distinction, the difference between C and D, I think is character evidence versus that very question of does this prove, disprove this specific instance? If I'm being honest, I don't totally know which one of those is okay. On one hand, it seems like C is the way more relevant answer. It's like, no, it's said in the the question is to support her assertion, and so C, admitted because is relevant as to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion, seems reasonable. But if the rule is that like, oh actually you can't do that because of the B thing, well, and by that I mean the that I think is that answer that you're not allowed to kind of do evidence that way. Then D is like, it's admitted to that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely. That, that would mean we're admitting this as character evidence, which I think usually is okay. Especially if it's, you're doing it for yourself. Like, you're not, as to gather negative character evidence about the other person, but you are allowed to be like, here's positive character evidence about me. Um, this is civil as well, so I almost think, I almost thinking you do either of those things, but um, I'm gonna have to figure out what's the most. So I have a lot of logical possibilities to go through in my mind, I gotta figure this out. Thing that I don't like is because the question says to support her assertion, Jenny called the owner of a cafe. And then D says admitted to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely. That's not a one-to-one, you know, like I think, that worries me a little because I think you, called them just bolster her character in that direct way, in that way of acting safely, rather than, hey, I'm saying I crossed when it was green, I'm gonna call someone to support, to quote, support my assertion, and they're doing a vague character thing. Man, I'm a little concerned about that mismatch. Okay, I'm revisiting A and B and I'm weirdly leaning more toward B of the two. I'm not sure I'm going with A or B, but like A's answer is excluded unless the owner actually saw Jenny crossing the street on the day of the accident. That's actually really weird because the testimony is I saw Jenny cross the street for five years and she has never walked against the red light. Right. It would be weird to say that statement is admissible if the owner also saw Jenny cross the street on that. You know what I mean? Like that would be that would be weird. I think the rule should be either you're allowed to bring this in or not based on the fact that it's like pattern in practice. I don't know if that's the correct term, but like I feel like that's the question, and it shouldn't be the testify, I quote, I saw Jenny cross the street for five years and she's never walked against the red light, only if that saw on particular, that particular occasion. I think that's, that I look at it, A seems totally wrong because that doesn't really make sense. Like, you'd either have the person testify about what they saw or not, and is sort of a mismatch, I think. So I'm eliminating A based on that. I think B now is a little bit more plausible because evidence of specific instances. B was excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. That sounds so close to something that's real, and it is, but I'm just misremembering. My problem is this should just say excluded because character evidence is not admissible, or does not prove conformity with character on a particular occasion. Like, it should just be that, not like evidence of specific instances of conduct, that just, that's a weird thing, it doesn't make any sense. Um, so I, B could be right, but I'm so hesitant to pick it, so that leans me toward A, C, or D, which is admitted in either case, and I'd have to pick my best one. Relevant, I'm just gonna go with C. I think that there's a possibility of a trick, weird, D being right, that like the way you get this in is based on it being character evidence and not because it's relevant to that particular occasion. But I think absent any like strong memory, I think I'm forced to just kind of judge this from the standpoint that like we're in a civil context, it's not a criminal thing where we're proving a person is always evil, this is a civil conduct where someone is trying to say, hey, I always do this one thing. Here's someone who has seen me always do this one thing, that should be relevant at the very least. It's got to be relevant to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion. Could see it being a sneaky answer D, but I think, I'm between B and C, and I'm going with C. I think that's where I've landed. I think there's a possibility B is right, and I'm just getting fixated on language that doesn't make sense to me. I think B will be my second chance, uh, is my like super trick third chance, but that doesn't, that's nothing, so I'm going with C, final answer. All right, if you'd like to play along, locate that blue sky post. Step one, go to blue sky, follow open args, follow Serious Pod, follow whatever Heather's one is, what is your one, professor

0:57:37 Thomas: Varanini, oh

0:57:36 Heather: Professor Varanini and a V as in Victor, just to clarify, because I think sometimes people think I'm using a B. I'm

0:57:45 Thomas: All of that but look for that post post from OpenArgs Blue Sky with a T3B in it and quote that and give your answer in your quotescape. Also, reddit .com slash r slash OpenArg. That's a great place to go to track answers. That is probably where most people go. It is a cool place to play. The biggest and best shout out, of course, will be, as always, from patreon .com slash law on the post for this episode. Those are the places to play Boy, I really am forward looking to figuring out what's going on with this one. I don't know. I'm at a loss. Will I continue this streak? Will I not? We'll find out next week.

0:58:20 Thomas: Right. Well, it's, it's been real, Heather Varanini. It's been very great, Heather Varanini. Looking forward to next week, all

0:58:18 Heather: Excited I can't wait Too, yeah

0:58:28 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:58:37 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our patrons at patreon.com slash law, and we'll start with our new patrons. Thank you so much to Robert Cook, Stephanie Snyder, Dan Thies, and Boston Smith. Oh, what a what a name, Boston Smith, ooh

0:58:50 Lydia: Welcome. Like you and Matt combined.

0:58:54 Thomas: Yeah, it is. Thank you to those new patrons for signing up, we hope you enjoy the perks, the no ads and uh maybe a lot of movies depending on what level you're at. And now it's time to thank our hall of famers, our all-time greats, we give them a shout out each and every week, unless that week happens to be Christmas, then we took a break, but it's time for the shout out. Why uh, don't you go first this time

0:59:15 Lydia: Right. James H., Vehicular Man's Laughter, telling you to drive over to WTW and put it in park for the deepest of dives and Doublest of Doozies. I went back to doing names just so I could hear you say how the sausage is made at the Michael Cohen factory again. I don't think I said that, but now you get to hear me say it.

0:59:34 Thomas: Was matt yeah the sauce that was that, yeah, that was Gavelpod, I think, right how the sausage is made at the Michael Cohen, yeah, I'm Jealous, yay

0:59:40 Lydia: Ate the Supreme Crunchwrap. Know. I want to now. Congrats on your your new job, Michelle. I'm so proud. Yay, we are too. It is I, Scriptifer.

0:59:55 Thomas: Oh man, that's the hardest I laughed in a long time, that was a Dear Old Dads reference Fantastic, oh

1:00:00 Lydia: Childless Cat Lady's Local 47 Chapter. Is she talking about me? It's in all caps. I hope I communicated that as part of that. Sex and gender are different things, something my new home state protects by law. Yeah. Apprentice of Adventure. Unfrozen caveman lawyer. Still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system. Cavalry. Nick Fish. The world's most reluctant ray of sunshine. A negative phenomenon. Quick update. Ovechkin's back already and is now 24 away.

1:00:32 Thomas: It might be 23 because I think he scored today or yesterday but yeah Yeah. No, that's crazy. Crazy. Two in a row. He has, well, one was the empty net, but you know, they all count. And then the next one was a, was a really nice, uh, one timer. I mean, he's the best girl score of all time. It's, it's just, just what it is.

1:00:34 Lydia: Saw a post. Yeah, yesterday. Yeah they count. Yeah Yeah. (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte). Jaysank, depose the CEO in your head. Ask less of yourself and others. Test E's interpreter. Oh, great. Now I have to go back to changing my name every month. But I don't think you have.

1:01:03 Thomas: Yeah. You should.

1:01:05 Lydia: E.T. E.T. We had that one. Yeah. E.T. Thomas Freeman. Cajunkilla. Fraud Fishy Hates Everything. And Chris Simpson. Samson.

1:01:12 Thomas: I I don't know, I always had a soft spot in my heart for Fraud Fishy Hates Everything. It's so stupid, love the extra episodes. Check out the queer and cryptography conference at cryptography.lgbt. Liberals own guns to 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, this isn't a Patreon name and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think Legal Eagle is so handsome. Mark Schultz, the Cincinnati kid. Bob Loblaw's Law... Podcast. Philly basement bar is back open and isn't taking the shit lying down. Yeah, edgy veggie. Hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. Kail. Kizer. This one's all, they snuck in a lot by not putting any spaces. Ready? To Thomas and Lydia, Heather and Matt, and T3BE, the bar exam chat. May, but perfectly clear. Merry Xmas to all, and a Happy New Year. Wow. Fit it all in. Fantastic.

1:02:10 Thomas: Well done, that's, that might be the winner, it's not the funniest but it's, but it is the most, and no it's very nice, I appreciate it. The 501st and Rebel Legion want you, cosplayers doing good, a string of unpronounceable characters, Milo Meadsong is on to the post-conviction process now that a certain petition was denied, Malaika Chandler, Xakir The Dragon, the precious variant, Big Easy Blasphemy, RhondaTheDork.com, FRED R GROOTHUIS, Chris Waltrip, Mitchell, and ClassicLibtard on top, but probably not after this month. I'm telling you, in 2025, there will be a new top patron, unless something drastically changes, but I don't think it will. Someday. That'll be interesting.

1:02:18 Lydia: That's nice. Very sweet. Be January 6. It will be a takeover.

1:02:54 Thomas: Wow. Wow. But I suppose extra special shout out to ClassicLibTard for being at the top for so long. You so much, top patrons. You're the best. Hope I you enjoyed this year. I don't know. I hope I enjoyed.

1:03:09 Lydia: A mixed bag.

1:03:10 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, the latter half of the year, particularly the latter three quarters.

1:03:14 Lydia: It's been really nice being back with you all.

1:03:16 Thomas: Yeah. Never on the show. No, definitely check out the great stuff on Where There's Woke and Serious Inquiries Only. And man, Gavelpod, Gavelpod, there's a lot of stuff to listen to right now. If you're somehow at a shortage right now, check out those other places because lots of new shit.

1:03:33 Lydia: If you're a fan of my voice, Gabble Gabble is the place to be.

1:03:37 Thomas: Yeah. Right. Thank you, seriously, for a great 2024. We're so glad to have the show back and hope 2025 can be even better. And new year many happy returns and we're kissing all of you

1:03:50 Lydia: Cheers.

1:03:51 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.