The Hysterical Victimhood Complex of John Eastman

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 1109, and I'm Thomas. I'm joined by a Wednesday, I was going to say intruder, but that's unkind, but a Wednesday guest. Matt Cameron, how are you doing, Matt?

0:01:10 Matt: To be here and ready to do some hardcore unpersoning let's get to it let's unperson this guy

0:01:14 Thomas: Yeah, let's unperson someone. Yeah, boy, this is, of course, the usual Wednesday, which is now some amount of content. Plus, Thomas takes the bar exam. And this week we had so much. Matt is bursting with wanting to take on John Eastman. And I don't blame him. Can't wait. Had to go through this ridiculous article. Victim narrative about John Eastmen is too much for us to take here in opening arguments.

0:01:38 Matt: It's really something.

0:01:40 Thomas: We want to do our part to not allow that nonsense to happen. I'm excited. I think this is going to be really fun. We weren't sure if we were going to do this for like patrons only or for whatever, but we just decided let's do it for everybody and have a lot of fun. And then, of course, we'll do the usual T3B answer and question with Heather. So that to look forward to. We'll take a quick break. Hey, avoid the ads. Get the good stuff on patreon.com/law. Please support the show. It's very important. Thank you to all who do. Right. After this break, we're going to we're going to find out what the biggest victim John Eastman. We're going to find out why he's been unpersoned.

0:02:14 Matt: This is a piece, In the American Mind, by one T.J. Harker. And all I can think of is the William Shatner cop, T. J. Hooker, every time I see T. Jay Harkers name. But I never saw T.J. Hooker. I assume it wasn't very good. Couldn't be Shatners best work.

0:02:26 Thomas: Shatner is a cop. He has real cop energy.

0:02:27 Matt: That's true. James T. Kirk is kind of a cop in his own way. Is a piece entitled The Unpersoning of John Eastman, written by T.J. Harker. I will note that Harkner was a former U.S. attorney somehow under Donald Trump, appointed in 2019 in Greenville, Tennessee, where he's from. According to the Department of Justice website, he was doing advanced health care fraud litigation. So I wonder how that worked out.

0:02:49 Thomas: Had to go listen to the John Eastmen Lawrence Lessig episode. You didn't mention that he was a student. So John Eastman was Lawrence Lessig's student. Oh, if you did, I missed it.

0:02:55 Matt: I thought I did. I meant to. No,

0:02:59 Thomas: Though Eastman is older, So I thought that was interesting. That certainly changed a little bit of the character of that episode. But all in all, way too civil for my taste. But it will say that particular, I want to mention that I listened to that and I got a sense for how slimy these people are. I think you had that sense from consuming a lot of this stuff, but really disturbing because these people know what they're doing with this fascism. They know what they're doing and then they know when they talk to somebody an ex -professor of theirs like lawrence lessig who's a very very intelligent law person he has a whole different persona he has all different thing he's no longer the dude in the hat saying hello america they stole everything then he's all reasonable then he makes like sounding arguments um I had never listened to john eastman in that context I just kind of assumed he was kind of an idiot he's not an idiot he's he's pretty intelligent he's a sharp at least sharp in terms of his uh ability to form these arguments in a convincing way um I

0:03:51 Matt: School. He has argued in front of

0:03:52 Thomas: Did

0:03:52 Matt: The Supreme Court. He's not a complete idiot. He is just a fascist.

0:03:53 Thomas: Not know any I forgot all of that I just he went down in my mind is that asshole planned the coup and that's my bias he's showing through because I think it even more bolsters the point that these aren't just idiots these are people actively participating the thing is though So that's when it gives up the game for me, like it when makes it even more apparent that the thing they want is the fascism, because if he's willing to shift his entire persona, the way he's arguing because he knows there's an adult he's talking to and Lawrence Lessig, that tells me that he knows what he's doing, thing like he's doing in a different context is claiming the election was stolen from Trump and he's rallying a bunch of people to be mad about it, which is very different from the reasonable approach he tried to take on with this Lawrence Lessig podcast, you know, some months later. Part of that could be the legal jeopardy and the fact that it didn't work. So he had to, pretend you that it never happened or something, I guess, is what you would have to do. Me even more to know that they know what they're doing. Like

0:04:46 Thomas: In some ways, the blindly fascist people are a little more like like understandable versus the people who do know better, but want the fascism and are willing to lie for it.

0:04:56 Matt: That is really the thing. That is why I think he has been facing these severe bar consequences that I am sure we will be talking about in the course of our unpersoning discussion. I do want to say, though, just for the record, that there is at least one of my former students listening, and if you ever try to overthrow the government, you are coming on the show to explain yourself, is civil. So no, he's a nice guy and I appreciated what he did, but I don't know if I can hold my temper. We might finally see my temper. It could happen.

0:05:08 Thomas: And will not be as nice as Lawrence Lessig.

0:05:19 Thomas: It will be imperceptible, but that's okay. Through the magic of audio editing, I'll get it to maybe sound slightly perceptible. Right. Here we go. The unpersoning of poor. You can't hear it, but I'm crying. I'm choking up.

0:05:32 Matt: Let us do it now. Great horror movie name, by the way, The Unpersoning.

0:05:35 Thomas: John Eastman. Oh, regime is set on full spectrum destruction of its enemies. The regime being the Biden one. This is obviously before the election. John Eastman is a legal scholar of the first rank. Oh, Anyway, has argued before the Supreme Court, testified in Congress, and cultivated a deserved reputation as an expert in constitutional law. He has practiced at a prestigious law firm, served as both professor and dean at Chapman University Law School, and of course represented many notable figures, including Donald Trump.

0:05:44 Matt: This is May, 2024 for the record. Not even ranked.

0:06:07 Thomas: Unlike many lawyers, he earned a reputation for integrity, intelligence and moral courage. Sure.

0:06:07 Matt: Notable in fact. To footnote all of this too, right up until November 2020, basically.

0:06:17 Thomas: Exactly. This would be like if you didn't see what happened in November through January.

0:06:22 Matt: Stick an asterisk on this. Yeah.

0:06:24 Thomas: Is like an obituary you're writing, you before he's died, just getting it ready. And then like after January 6th happens, you're like, well, none of that works. Get rid of all that. But no, it's an actual serious article in 2024. all lawyers who maintained a bank account with a major... What? Maintained a bank count with a financial institution. And of course, a state license to practice law. In his case, in California. One of the hardest bar licenses to earn. Sound like the trappings of a good life. The reputational and material fruits of a lifetime of honest hard work. It used to be the case that once earned, such fruits were then possessed of right what yeah and no person certainly no american would dare to deprive eastman of his right to them merely because of his legal work or political speech indeed it was not so long ago that even suggesting as much would have been considered un -american not any longer yeah

0:06:51 Matt: A bank account. A law license. This is incredible.

0:07:17 Matt: Just for a second. Imagine if we're talking about a lawyer who did something that we all obviously understand is bad, like helping a drug dealer wander his money, right? Very straightforward. Or helping your client hide a body, right. Say any of those things about this lawyer that did those things. I just want to point out, because obviously, as we've discussed in the most recent episode, what Eastman did is pretty straightforward, but it's still unusual. It's crimes.

0:07:30 Thomas: It's crimes but it's crime crimes that look like paper stuff so I guess it's fine nope it's times as crimes man today

0:07:38 Matt: That's right. And he's a lawyer, so how could you possibly hold him responsible for anything is really the argument here.

0:07:46 Thomas: Extremely powerful people in the government High finance, big law, big business, state bar associations, academia, and elsewhere have decided to destroy John Eastman because of his legal work and political speech on behalf of Donald Trump in 2020 and early 2021. Some hated his courageous challenge to their democracy. What Yeah. Unquote, their democracy, that's hyperlink. So what's that one again about? Mark Elias. Okay.

0:08:04 Matt: Unquote, their democracy.

0:08:11 Thomas: EliAS doesn't like him. Feared his intellect what okay uh women want him men want to be him still others saw an opportunity to increase increase their middling stature by bringing low a greater mind while fantasizing that by disagreeing with eastman they fulfilled an oath to God? What? Okay.

0:08:11 Matt: Yeah, it's That's Greg Jacob. There's a story about Greg Jacob there. Very afraid of him. That's why I'm here, just to be clear.

0:08:36 Thomas: Oh, that's also hyper. Who did that? I gotta, I gotta find this out. Oh Greg Jacob.

0:08:39 Matt: It's another story about Greg Jacob, yeah.

0:08:41 Thomas: Okay. Think Greg Jacob had some anti -John Eastman agenda? He was like, yeah man, no thanks, let's get dinner next time you're here. Like, you didn't do it out of some like anti -oh, I'm, finally, my chance. You know, when John Eastman emailed me his coup plans, I thought, here's my chance to, for no reason, bring an innocent, hardworking hardworking lawyer down.

0:09:05 Matt: We discussed in our last episode, he still seems to hold the the fact that the Capitol was under siege against John Eastman for some reason. It's totally unfair. Unbelievable.

0:09:14 Thomas: People are so unfair to John Eastman. Orwell called this coordinated process of erasing one's official identity unpersoning by depriving John Eastman...

0:09:18 Matt: We go. Okay. Got to stop here. I'm sorry. All right. None of these people have read 1984. I just have to point this out. They have never read it. They don't understand what's in it. Unpersoning in 1984 was not only eliminating somebody from history, like Stalin style, right? Where they do the back to the future thing where the guy just disappears from the photograph. Then you actually also kill and disappear him. Is he actually?

0:09:41 Thomas: Well, that's what's next at this

0:09:43 Matt: As of May 2024, that had not happened. As of this weekend, we know he was at the premiere of his own movie. Still not unpersoned.

0:09:44 Thomas: Rate. Was he a person at the time, though?

0:09:55 Matt: I guess we'll find out. He's been unperson in other ways. But I just want to point out again that bringing in Orwell in 1984, they just love to do this. They cannot help themselves. And that is not what happened in 1984. But okay, onward.

0:10:05 Thomas: Yeah, the people Orwell was writing about have been bringing it up as an against other people for ever since he wrote.

0:10:10 Matt: Yes, that's right. This is about us. We're the victims.

0:10:13 Matt: That's right, and I will point out, actually, unpersoning in history, as long as we're talking about this, was a damnatio memore, an actual thing in Roman law where you'd write somebody out of history, which is a really cool idea. I wish we could do it to Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani and any number of other people, actually.

0:10:25 Thomas: Yeah, I don't know about that. I feel like we need to know about people in history who suck.

0:10:27 Matt: That's true. Well, I will say they would write people out like the guy who destroyed the Temple of Artemis, which I've been to in Ephesus, Turkey, and one giant column left that they've managed to reconstruct. You go to the site otherwise. It's a very chilling kind of thing to go to. But the man who burned it down, his punishment was that he would be erased from history and that his name would never be spoken. And I'm going to honor that by not mentioning his name, even though he has a Wikipedia entry.

0:10:34 Thomas: He didn't destroy it very well then if you've been to it. Again, once again, they didn't do a great job then, I guess.

0:10:55 Matt: It is a good punishment though.

0:10:55 Thomas: Depriving John Eastman of his employment, employability, law license, reputation, access to money, and even his freedom. The regime seeks to send a message. That message is not to John Eastman. It's to you. Don't you dare challenge the regime or you too will be unpersoned.

0:11:14 Matt: If you do crimes, you will be prosecuted and this part. That is the message.

0:11:17 Thomas: They're just describing the things that happens to crime people. That's just criminals. That's what happens.

0:11:22 Matt: Well, let's find out unpersoning item number one. This is a subheading.

0:11:25 Thomas: One, his regime is stocked with clever lawyers at big law firms and nonprofit activist organizations. The regime

0:11:33 Matt: You sound jealous, TJ. Don't you wish you had clever lawyers?

0:11:37 Thomas: God this is so over here in reality town the regime didn't do a very good job like I wish the regime was anything like this asshole was saying because instead we a very moderate uh slow working attorney general who barely did anything in the the four years, apparently.

0:11:55 Matt: He's admitting that we still have better lawyers, clever lawyers. That's an admission that they don't have any. John Eastman's the best they got or used to have before he was unpersoned.

0:12:03 Thomas: He's no longer. Who are you talking about? I can't even hear the syllables you're saying. He's been out of prison. Recently, these clever lawyers have stumbled upon a new lawfare tactic. Deprive their opponents of access to the courts by depriving them of lawyers.

0:12:18 Matt: Because of the things the lawyers did. Terrible. Terrible.

0:12:20 Thomas: This idea that, yeah, that's our plan. We're going to get rid of all lawyers who would take this. No, there's a tiny list of lawyers who wanted to do crimes and Eastman was one of them. And then it's harder to find people after that to do crime. Well,

0:12:38 Matt: I'm just going to point out that John Eastman is being represented by Boston legend Harvey Silverglade, a civil rights attorney, in, I believe, one of his cases, one of his criminal cases. To date, is still doing just fine, so far as I know. I'm looking up to make sure that he has not himself been unpersoned.

0:12:51 Thomas: We got to unperson him. Yeah, I was going to say, let's get to it. Organizations like the 65 Project and States United Democracy Center exist to take the licenses of lawyers with the courage to advance legal actions that threaten the regime. After Biden's inauguration, they targeted John Eastman. What?

0:13:08 Matt: Is somewhat true. Organizations are intentionally targeting lawyers who do things that are disparable. Yes, they are. Johnny Smith's going to have a lot to say about both of those things, I assume, in the movie that we'll be watching soon enough, whenever they release it.

0:13:17 Thomas: As soon as we can get tickets, it's a hot ticket. I can't figure it out.

0:13:20 Matt: It's just sold out. We'll talk about it as we go there. Let's hear what he has to say about these organizations.

0:13:25 Thomas: October 4th, 2021, SUDC filed a 30 -page complaint against Eastman with the State Bar of California, where Eastman is licensed. On July 18th, 2022, the 65 Project filed a similar complaint with the Supreme Court of the United States. These memoranda attempted to persuade the licensing authorities to disbar Eastman, arguing that his advocacy on behalf of Donald Trump amounted to conduct unbecoming of the bar. In April, SUDC succeeded. Following a 35 -day trial, Judge Yvette Rowland, a partisan Democrat, issued a 138 -page order recommending that Eastman lose his license.

0:14:03 Thomas: I'm going to assume you've read that entire thing, Matt.

0:14:02 Matt: So let's talk about that. I have actually read a lot of it, and I have a summary here. We'll be talking about it during the movie, of course.

0:14:09 Thomas: There an audio book? Because I would read too.

0:14:11 Matt: The States United Democracy Center is, in fact, doing things like this. It's funded entirely by eBay founder and billionaire peer Omidar and the Omidar Network. So again, just remember, these people have dark money. They have endless amounts of dark money, and it seems that maybe the gander should get some if the goose is covered in dark money. I don't know how that works. So United Democracy Center does have a $17 million budget. It does not exist only for disbarring people, but it did file this 30 -page complaint, which is full of things that John Eastman said and did. He's very, very annoyed about that, obviously.

0:14:41 Thomas: They tricked him into doing that. Those saying those things. No, it's just things he said.

0:14:44 Matt: Things that are easily Easily findable in the public record. Yeah.

0:14:48 Thomas: While that makes this not make sense, Matt. So how could that be?

0:14:52 Matt: Judge Yvette Rowland in California did, in fact, write this very long decision. I just want to mention for the record, since we're talking about it, some of the findings from this decision very quickly.

0:15:01 Thomas: Please.

0:15:01 Matt: And again, these are disbarment proceedings. It was a 35 -day trial. He cannot say this was a kangaroo court. They brought in multiple witnesses. The prosecution brought in, among other people, Matt Seligman to talk about the actual history history of the law here and the fact that he had to have known that this was not a good faith thing. Is really remarkable. We're going to link to it, obviously, but this disbarment decision is like something I've ever seen because you're talking about somebody whose main thing was trying to overthrow the government. That's really what they're arguing about. And the judge found that they were able to prove 10 of those charges. They actually were not able to prove that the statements that he made that we played the other day at January 6th at the rally finale were enough to have contributed to provoking the crowd to assault and breach the Capitol because, you know, sort of the whole milieu, the whole thing was already like that. Otherwise, there is so much stuff in here, and we'll talk about it when we get to the movie as well. But just to remind everybody, he wrote those two different memos, which both stated things that he knew weren't true about Mike Pence's ultimate authority to reject electoral certificates, which he knew was not true. He made the false claim about the possibility of dual slates of electors in late December 2020 when he knew that was not a possibility, that there weren't going to be legitimate alternate electors. Went on to Steve Bannon's war room, among other things, and told everybody that there was widespread evidence of election fraud. He kept repeating all this stuff, even knowing that all of the challenges had failed, that Bill Barr said there was no fraud, that he was told by everybody involved that there was not meaningful fraud, there was nothing that could have possibly changed the outcomes in any of these states. Lying multiple times in so many different ways. And the lies of John Eastman could be another five episodes. I found so many as we were going through preparing for the other day. They that they found that the bar could not prove was sufficient evidence of bad faith, which I still believe it was bad faith.

0:16:38 Matt: But you have to be able to prove clear and convincing. Yeah, totally. I guess it's in there. But there. They did find that Eastman directly contributed to the events of January 6th, and they essentially found that trying to overthrow the government, you'll never believe this, it's an aggravating factor in bar proceedings.

0:16:38 Thomas: I should listen to that episode. Wow. That's if anything should be an aggravating factor, that could be it.

0:16:55 Matt: For a comparison, they compared, because he was trying to argue about Donald Segretti. Do you know about Donald Segreti, the Watergate guy? Was disbarred in California for two years, and he is the man, you're going to have to believe this, but he was the man who gave the world the word rat fucking. The man who invented the word ratfucking did better than John Eastman because he took responsibility. And the judge found that there was compelling mitigation because he expressed remorse. Rowland found that Eastman has exhibited an unwillingness to acknowledge any ethical lapses regarding his actions. The lack of remorse and accountability presents a significant risk that Eastmen may engage in further unethical conduct, compounding the threat to the public. Public. John Eastman is a threat to the public. That's actually what she's saying. And I think she's right.

0:17:35 Thomas: Yeah. I mean, again, this is, you get to just be a lawyer for, you know, You know, like it's like you have to go to school and pass a test and do some hard stuff. And a lawyer who is a shitty person is a threat to the public. A lawyer on a good day is a thread to the pub. Sorry, Matt, close your ears.

0:17:52 Thomas: Most lawyers on a Good Day are threat to public. A lawyer who's actually bad is a real threat. It's so easy to take advantage of people. And I think it would be a good idea in the same way that I wouldn't want a doctor who who was doing their job intentionally badly or, or even unintentionally too terribly, you know, like I wouldn't want them to continue to be able to call themselves a doctor. And I don't want this who keeps just messing up the person's taxes and ruining their, you know like getting, I wouldn'T want that person to continue, to be a CPA. And

0:17:52 Matt: I'll take it. Right? Yeah. Right,

0:18:25 Thomas: This rat fucker shouldn't continue to being a lawyer.

0:18:25 Matt: I mean, exactly. You get disbarred for negligence, for extreme negligence. And we're talking about if he's a doctor, this is not accidentally cutting off the wrong limb once in a while. This is intentionally intentionally cutting off somebody's fingers and arguing that it was the right thing to do. Like

0:18:42 Thomas: Like medically necessary. And everyone's like, Like, but had he like, you tumor. Like, why is why is that the thing? Yeah. And my alarm bells went off a little when I heard Judge Yvette Rowland. It sounded like maybe emphasizing that this is a female judge.

0:18:49 Matt: No doctor would do that. Yes.

0:18:59 Thomas: See If that, comes you into play.

0:19:00 Matt: She's also not entirely white, so that is relevant.

0:19:02 Thomas: A judicial order is supposed to be the product of a rigorous application of the law to the facts. Rowland inverted that process. She applied SUDC's facts to Eastman's legal analysis, taking as fact that there was no fraud in the 2020 election and reaching her own conclusions about confusing legal issues like the Electoral Count Act to conclude that Eastman must have been dishonest. This inverts the very purpose of

0:19:17 Matt: We all do. Yes, so she was supposed to adjudicate, re -adjudicate for like the 75th time that there was fraud in the 2020 election there's no evidence of that whatsoever. I mean, this is so bad faith.

0:19:37 Thomas: You don't get to just decide that because you disagreed with someone else's like about they're not being fraud that you can just carry on as though there was forever and then like someone they're like hey you can't do that someone has to like go re -evaluate the original thing it's like no man you as a matter of law that didn't your thing was wrong you didn't you can't just keep going on as though you were right yeah

0:20:03 Matt: Meaningful fraud that changed it. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. But I also I want to note, I really appreciated that Judge Rowland, in a footnote, of course, noted that was not holding Eastman responsible for the fact that he repeated some ridiculous statistical probability, something like one in 400 quadrillion or something that Joe Biden actually won the election. Because we all know that lawyers should not be held responsible for doing math. So good work. All right, let's see what else we got.

0:20:06 Thomas: Winks at matt cameron yeah at any rate judge roland persisted hmm and obviously trying to emphasize the uh annoying you know mouthy broad like elizabeth warren uh

0:20:35 Matt: The lady. It's so funny. They think that's a slam somehow when I

0:20:42 Thomas: Well it is to them I mean again I think this is they know This person knows their audience is the intended reader is like, man, I don't like this judge. There's something about, there's just, she's just too, you know, just too mouthy, this judge, I don't know. In concluding, she recommended that Eastman be disbarred because he, one, signed off on a motion to intervene in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a case brought by the state of Texas challenging the election laws in Pennsylvania and and elsewhere. And two, provided legal advice on Trump v. Raffensperger, a case filed against the Georgia of State. Three, signed a verified complaint in Trump v Camp. And four, worked mightily to encourage Republicans in the seven contested states to meet and vote on alternate slates of electors. Just sneak that one in there. Five, and sent a two -page legal memo to some Trump attorneys. Six appeared on Steve Bannon's war room and seven wrote an article in the American mind. Wow.

0:21:35 Thomas: That, how could those be crimes, Matt? Those all seemed like words.

0:21:35 Matt: Where's the crime? Merely just drank three handles of Jack Daniels. One and two got in his car. Three drove. Where is the crime. Crime.

0:21:45 Thomas: None of those things individually is a crime.

0:21:48 Matt: Right. Of course, I don't need to tell you that every one of those things that he mentions were full of lies, like actual demonstrable bad faith lies that perpetuated January 6th. Are misrepresentations of why Judge Rowland disbarred him. Yes. Did not disbar him because he appeared on Steve Bannon's forum. I mean, As much as that should be disparable.

0:21:54 Thomas: Sorry. I was going to say, I don't know. Might have a point. Other words, Eastman helped to bring lawsuits in various courts. Again, if you just, if things are just words, those sound like sometimes other words and those words can't be crimes. Helped to brings lawsuits in various, various Various courts wrote and filed complaints, wrote legal memos and, quote, worked mightily to get state legislators to vote to get

0:22:12 Matt: He did. This is like saying that he was involved.

0:22:32 Thomas: Out the vote act. Yeah.

0:22:33 Matt: He was involved with some bullets entering some people. Right.

0:22:36 Thomas: Exactly. He moved his finger a little bit that happened to be touching a trigger. And he was holding an He was Matt. It was an object in his hand. Oh, well, I can't hold objects now and move my finger on them. Matt, in your America, come on.

0:22:46 Matt: Perfectly legal object. Had a license for it. Yeah. The regime, the

0:22:53 Thomas: And that's what the regime dictates? Said I killed someone and you're going to take their word for it? Also appeared on television and wrote articles. If you suspect these activities are routine for litigators, you're right. Really?

0:22:53 Matt: Regime will come for you. Yep.

0:23:07 Thomas: You just go on TV all the time? Eastman Sin, however, was doing them on behalf of Donald Trump.

0:23:10 Matt: You bring lawsuits into media. Yeah, sure. Correct.

0:23:16 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, Rowland twisted herself into knots explaining why the seven points listed above were unethical, drawing factual findings and legal conclusions of astonishing breadth in the process. Among others, her findings include the First Amendment does not protect Eastman's political speech on Bannon's war room, his article in the American mind, or even the things he said to Vice President Pence, because this speech was false and, quote, employed as a tool in the commission of a crime.

0:23:19 Matt: That was the problem. Literally, yes.

0:23:46 Thomas: It's a quote unquote crime is that what she's he's literally scare quoting crime like ah come on it was false judge roland assured us in a circular fashion because the 2020 presidential election was the most secure in american history and the court has already determined that no fraud occurred in the the 2020 election points I refute here and here and there's links I'm not clicking on them and they were in furtherance of a crime because a beleaguered district attorney in another state charged eastman with one this isn't legal reasoning it's a perverse combination of bootstrapping and begging the question or you could have said question begging but yeah

0:23:50 Matt: That's this whole place. Want to know where this radical leftist judge got the idea that the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history, Thomas? Could you possibly guess?

0:24:31 Thomas: The italian laser that no what was that I don't know the

0:24:36 Matt: The The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency from DHS, an actual government report. That is what she's citing, these ridiculous findings.

0:24:41 Thomas: But is it part of the regime okay well wait wait but it well also would that have been under trump still I

0:24:44 Matt: Yes, the DHS regime. The DHS of course being the leftiest part of the government. Yes, actually, that would have still been under Trump. You're right. So that actually, let me just state this very clearly because it's a very good point. Would have been on November 12th, 2020 when Donald Trump was in fact still president.

0:24:59 Thomas: Well yeah but like because they saw the election results they're like let's start being the evil biden regime though is Yeah, they're like, well, we see the writing on the wall. We're now an evil leftist Biden regime. And so that's why they said that, Matt, idiot.

0:25:04 Matt: DHS well -known lefties. Yep.

0:25:14 Thomas: Next, Rowland determined that a complaint filed, you're just as mouthy as this broad who's a judge, Matt.

0:25:14 Matt: That checks out. I'm persisting.

0:25:21 Thomas: Yeah, stop persisting. Next, rowland determined that a complain filed with the United States Supreme Court by the state of Texas was false in quotes because it argued that Pennsylvania and other states violated the constitution in ignoring their own election laws. Having determined that the arguments were, quote, false, she heaped responsibility on Eastman because he moved for Trump to join Texas as a plaintiff, tacitly adopting Texas's false arguments.

0:25:45 Matt: Not just tacitly, like actually perpetuating them in his filing.

0:25:49 Thomas: Can you tacitally file something? I'm filing just a tacit endorsement of these arguments. They're not actually...

0:25:56 Matt: Just going to leave this here. Do what you will.

0:25:57 Thomas: If anyone finds this brief, like, they can file it. But this is weird since Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch stated, quote, there's a strong likelihood that Pennsylvania violated the federal constitution, just as Texas and Eastman said. Well, you know, that's the problem with having justices that are also insurrectionists at That I don't know if that's true. Is

0:26:00 Matt: What weren't talking about any election stuff. They were talking about the state Supreme Court decision might have been in violation of the federal constitution that they wanted to review, but he's making it sound like something else entirely.

0:26:28 Thomas: Yep. Also dismissed a century's worth of legal wrangling about the meaning of the Electoral Count Act, the 12th Amendment and the role of state legislatures, governors and the vice president in certifying and counting electoral votes. In sweeping this morass aside, she simply declared that Eastman's legal interpretation of these issues was a, quote, lie, repeatedly declaring in her order that, quote. The court has already determined that Eastmen's statements regarding the powers of the vice present were false. Other than vis -a -vis eastman's law license roland's determined oh this is already good I love the sentence already okay I don't want to spoil it roland determination has no more authority than would your book club were it to determine the scope of the first amendment, the meaning of the 12th amendment or electoral count act or the existence of election fraud throughout the land in 2020. What?

0:27:18 Matt: Why can't this lady just go to her book club and shut up?

0:27:22 Thomas: But she's the court that's doing this thing. What are you talking about? Disbarment proceeding can only disbar me. It can't do these other things that, what are you, it's taking into to account stuff in order to disbar you. That's what it is, right?

0:27:36 Matt: Only your book club can judge me. I don't know what's going on.

0:27:38 Thomas: If being evicted from that book club, then yeah. You know who can judge that? The book club. If what the book club is saying is, hi, we voted and you're an asshole, can you please get out of our book club? Oh, you have no more authority to do that than... No, yeah, they're the book Club. They can say you're not in our book Club anymore. That is actually exactly what they're doing. That is what the bar is doing, right, Matt? Do I have that wrong? The bar is a book club and they can let people into their book club or out of their book club, right?

0:28:03 Matt: That's true. And if somebody kept trying to get us to read John Eastman books, I would kick them out of the book club.

0:28:10 Thomas: Or kept misrepresenting what the books were that idea that a single judge with no constitutional law experience in a backwater, in a backwater non -federal court with narrow subject matter jurisdiction in a single state had the authority or capacity to make sweeping legal pronouncements that span the entire continent and 200 200 years of jurisprudence is, well, not serious, but Rowland had to make these findings to justify taking Eastman's law license. So she did. The outcome was predetermined. How, okay. Gun to your head, author. How should a disbarment work? Tell me, how should a Disbarment work with this theory?

0:28:18 Matt: Backwater. Wait. Apparently you need to bring in judges who have jurisdiction to make final decisions about the constitutionality of things and the legality of things rather than just having her review it as a judge and say, it seems like you broke the law.

0:28:57 Thomas: Well, and it needs to be like a national cooperative. Like it can't just Just be this, the California, you're bar certified in one state at a time, right? Can be disbarred in one state and not disbarreted in another state, right.

0:29:01 Matt: A bunch of different judges. Ultimately, you're probably gonna end up with all of them, but yep. One by one.

0:29:12 Thomas: Then you would think it's always going to be a single state that is doing the disbarment. Matt, am I crazy? It's pretty much that state is going to being in charge of their bar, their state bar.

0:29:21 Matt: This particular backwater, do you know the backwater that they're talking about. You're not even ready for this.

0:29:27 Thomas: Yeah, it's California. Yeah.

0:29:29 Matt: Again, I don't know California that well, but I've been to this backwater and I find it to be terrifying. It's Los Angeles. The backwater of Los Angeles, bunch

0:29:37 Thomas: The backwaters of Los Angeles. There's alligators running around there. There's, you know, God knows what. Yeah. Backwater. Backwater? How could you refer to any, like, California bar proceeding as happening in a backwater non -federal court? Why would it be in a federal court, Matt? A disbarment procedure. I mean, do I know? Please let me know if I don't understand something. This is a book club. This is state book club, and he's like, well, well, you, the state book club, can you believe they kicked me out and they're just a state book club? What should be kicking me out is a, is a cooperative of national something better than book clubs. They should know it's you're in a book club. They're kicking you out of it.

0:29:43 Matt: Of hicks. I don't what he's talking about. No, you're right. Yeah.

0:30:18 Matt: Superbar. It to the Superbar, I guess. I

0:30:21 Thomas: World government bar. Like, what are you talking about?

0:30:24 Matt: Someday, someday.

0:30:25 Thomas: Well, we've already gone on too long. So how do we do this? Debank him is the next section. And I want to know what's happening here, because if he's been debanked, then that is thrilling. I would like that.

0:30:36 Matt: It is an interesting point. We could do some bonus content on this. We're here.

0:30:40 Thomas: Yeah. Maybe we just keep God. I can't believe how fast this went, but I promise I can turn stuff around this fast editing we? Okay. We will do the rest for patrons. We love our page. We want to try to reward patrons more because they're so great. This is nothing. This is nothing wrong with non -patrons. We love you. Is just to try to reward the patrons who support the show. We will carry on and do some unedited continuing commentary for patrons at patreon.com/law. everybody else. Else, it's time for Thomas takes the bar exam. You know, the bar, that thing that is an internationally recognized team of, no, it is just the state. It

0:31:17 Matt: Bars as well. That's why the Supreme Court was receiving one of these complaints. We're talking about his law license in California, which is, that's one of the ones you want to have, California. It's a good one.

0:31:30 Thomas: How else would this work? Like, how else would they do it? Crazy. All right. As asshole is disbarred, another asshole is going to try to answer a bar exam question correctly. So get on after the break with Heather Veronini and get the answer to last week's question. Question. Thanks so much, Matt, for joining us on a Wednesday. And patrons, look forward to the rest of this. Actually, right now. Show is bought by Quince. Hey, it's winter and winter is a time when especially want to get cozy you want me I'm too hot all the time but normal humans They want to get warm during the winter and not just warm, cozy. I feel like that's a step up from warm, you you would like the ultimate cold weather necessities to get cozy made from premium materials, you got to check out Quince. Quince, you can treat yourself to quality at an affordable price. To how cozy all this stuff is. Quince's iconic Mongolian cashmere sweater, the super soft fleece sweatpants, wind resistant consistent responsible down jackets and much more. That's some cozy stuff, all of that. And it's high quality. Lasts. Because Quince partners with Top Factories directly and they cut out the cost of the middleman, it's affordable as well. Have now gotten another thing from quince which is awesome I ordered new bath towels talk about cozy I didn't realize folks I've been operating at like a 0 .3 towel per towel in towels per towel I was under severely under what I was supposed to be my towel was like half a towel per tile these quince towels are it's like 10 towels I'm not even joking it's I can't even believe how much towel it is it's so cozy get out out of the shower. It's just completely engulfing you in this lush bathroom towel. What I got recently, but I love everything I've gotten from Quince and you will too. Luxuriate in coziness without the luxury price tag. Go to quince .com slash OA for 365-day returns plus free shipping on your order. That is That's Q -U -I -N -C -E dot com slash O -A to get free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince .com slash O .A.

0:33:39 Clip: I just know, that you are gonna kick that bar's butt, out of here, you know,

0:33:44 Thomas: Heather, how are you doing this week?

0:33:46 Heather: I'm doing pretty good I did not get hit in a crosswalk this week so I I frankly I'm feeling pretty great how about you uh

0:33:52 Thomas: Fantastic. Fantastic uh crossed I think I'm similarly situated to where uh I us what this question was and

0:33:58 Heather: Jenny was suing dan for the broken leg that she suffered in the crosswalk so she went through a cross walk she got hit by dan and there's a little bit of back and forth about whether or not the light was green or whether other was red so yes uh so jenny is obviously saying uh the light was green um she called the owner of a cafe on the corner store where the accident happened uh to testify that he saw her across the street for five years and that she never walked against a red light and we're trying to determine whether or not that cafe owner's testimony should be excluded or admitted so correctly identified this as an evidence question.

0:34:11 Thomas: Pretty important question. Yeah.

0:34:35 Heather: You knew right away that when we were talking about testimony, we are talking about evidence. Also, you were talking about a subtopic. You were talking About Character Evidence. Kind of tipped you off to thinking that this might be a character evidence type of question?

0:34:35 Thomas: So far, so good. I mean it's about how the person is. It's not about that specific instance. So in that way it could be character evidence. Also, I know there's some sort of testimony you can do about like a pattern and practice thing. But I don't know if that's a different kind of thing.

0:35:01 Heather: You're You're right. So character evidence, it's a really major topic that comes up in evidence. It gets sussed all the time. The way that we think about this is kind of what you were saying. It's the basic nature of a person, and it typically conveys a moral judgment. Generally, it is inadmissible to show that a person acted in conformity with their character. Said another way, you'll hear this saying, generally, is inadmissible to prove propensity. So we're trying not to introduce evidence to show that someone is honest or peaceful or mean or violent or that kind of thing. A couple of ways. Like a lot of stuff in evidence, we've got this general rule, this is generally admissible. And then there's a bunch of exceptions. And you kind of hinted at that as you were walking through the questions. So depending on the type of case, whether it's civil or whether it'S criminal, we have some rules around how we can get around some some of those, right? How we can go about proving character. We'll talk about this a little bit more, but there's three main methods. One is reputation, one is opinion, and one is specific instances of conduct. Some of the language and some of Those answer choices are hitting at those. You also were talking a little Bit about pattern and practice. What you were getting at, I believe, is this related topic that comes up. It's called habit. Habit. It's a a person's regular response to a specific set of circumstances, right? Like to think of this as what we respond to a repeated specific situation. If I'm in front of a car door, what do I

0:36:20 Heather: Do? If I get in the driver's seat, what Do I do, right, thinking almost, what are those kinds of things? I don't think it's a surprise to hear that that habit evidence is generally admissible, right?

0:36:30 Thomas: Interesting okay and that really feels like what this is but I don't see any of the that wording in the answer so I'm a little nervous okay oh

0:36:39 Heather: Well, let's walk through them together. Answer choice D, it says that the cafe owner's testimony should be admitted to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely.

0:36:48 Thomas: Reputation you did talk about rep oh wait so that's different than character okay

0:36:52 Heather: So it's actually, what it is, it falls within character. It's a way to prove character. As you mentioned, as you were working through the questions, listen, character is kind of complicated and kind of of tough. So we'll what do is this. So like I said, generally evidence is inadmissible to prove that somebody acted basically conformity with their character, right? Can't bring it in to show, oh, he was violent. So on this particular day, he did a violent thing to show that he's kind of a violent guy, right. However, there are some rules about when and and how that can happen and what kind of case. So there's some, we three ways that we can prove character. And one of them is reputation. I'll explain a little bit. So reputation means the opinion that the community holds of an individual's character. So like what the opinion thinks about a particular person. This can come up in criminal cases when the defendant can can introduce reputation evidence of an alleged victim's character when it's relevant to the defenses asserted. So that's one way that it can come up. Not talking about sexual misconduct. There's a lot of different rules around that. But generally speaking, it can be relevant and it can't be introduced. But we're really talking about the opinion that the community holds of somebody. So when we're looking at this answer choice, I see this and I go, well, is the testimony of the cafe owner, is he testifying to his individual experience or Or is he trying to testify to say what the community is thinking,

0:38:14 Thomas: Is a member of the community so how how do you differentiate that oh

0:38:17 Heather: It's usually to say, well, a lot of those, it is like someone speaking on behalf of the community. Well, everybody here in the neighborhood, we think that, yeah, right.

0:38:24 Thomas: Interesting rather than okay well the other thing about d is that it strikes me that's calling it reputation but it seems like habit it feels more like the habit thing you were talking about yeah

0:38:36 Heather: Right, the fact pattern has a little bit more of a habit feeling to it, right will answer that question.

0:38:39 Thomas: It does to me are you eliminating d is that what the thrust of this was okay

0:38:47 Heather: D is the wrong answer choice because it's also kind of a mismatch here right we have the cafe owner all he's doing is talking about himself and his experience and he's doesn't meet that reputation right and again it's a way to prove character and like you said the fact pattern is feeling a lot like something that's habit and not like character it's not like

0:39:04 Thomas: So those are both ways to eliminate it okay I was just wondering if gotcha okay that answers my question okay g's out I

0:39:08 Heather: Yeah so d is definitely out so you're feeling that your d was wrong absolutely Absolutely.

0:39:13 Thomas: Worried that it could be sneakily right but a good the good good thing I didn't go with that

0:39:17 Heather: And then you excluded A, you got rid of A, which has excluded unless the owner actually saw Jenny crossing the street on the day of the accident, right? You were saying that that felt really limiting and narrowing,

0:39:29 Thomas: At first it seemed like oh yeah that sounds like something that's right but then it seemed weird that like again the testimony we're talking about is I saw this person always cross on the green light and so it'd be weird to say, yes, that is okay. As long as you actually saw them cross on the street on the day of the accident. You know, it's like two different things. It like, it struck me that either that kind of testimony should be allowed in this instance or not. It shouldn't be based on whether this person saw her on that day.

0:39:59 Heather: Exactly right. Federal rules of evidence that govern habit evidence is federal 406. And it tells us that the court can admit this type of evidence regardless of whether it's corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness. That's another way of saying exactly what you said, right? This is too limiting and that's how we exclude A. So A and D are out and we're just left with B and C.

0:40:15 Thomas: All right. Okay, at least we're at my final two answers. That's something.

0:40:24 Heather: Now we're done. We'll start with B, excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct and conformity with character on a particular occasion. You had mentioned this sounds a lot like word salad, right? And it kind of does, especially to someone who doesn't do this weird stuff all the time that we're doing, right. This term specific instances is getting at is it's that it's another type of how you prove character. It's another method of proving character. The definition is specific instances of conduct is evidence of particular events, which prove that an individual has a particular character trait. Again, it's really limiting and narrow, meaning that there's some, in to use this method, there's a lot of rules about when and how that that can happen, right? We have to ask, is that what's happening here? Is Dan trying to prove that she kind of sucks? Then And like overall, or that she's somebody who's not irrational, but she's maybe dangerous?

0:41:14 Thomas: Wait, what? How did we get to that? Because Jenny's using it to try to prove the opposite of that, right?

0:41:16 Heather: Well, because we're trying to proof exactly. Exactly. That's the other thing. Is she trying to prove that she's a safe person? Is she trying to approve that she is always safe?

0:41:26 Thomas: Yeah.

0:41:26 Heather: Is trying to improve something kind of generally about herself?

0:41:29 Thomas: But, but I, sorry to latch on because like, if you could read that again, because what, bothered me was the excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character. I think what bothered me is this, wouldn't this be the proving the character part? Like, know. I'm not, still not understanding the wording of this answer. It's confusing to me.

0:41:51 Heather: And it is. And part of the reason it is, is because it's just using some really specific verbiage about what's happening in your initial, as you were reviewing these answer choices, you were saying that it sounds close to something that was real, isn't. You were exactly right, because it is an incorrect statement of law, Oh, specific instances of conduct. Happens here is that there are some circumstances where specific instances are admissible.

0:42:06 Thomas: Thank God. Okay. Oh few. Hmm.

0:42:16 Heather: Like when character is at issue in a civil case, right? You can see a place where let's say someone's being sued for defamation. Makes sense that automatically their character is an issue, right. A of times when when someone's being sued for defamation, that's what's happening.

0:42:20 Thomas: Okay, yeah, you're defaming their character. Okay so enough can it be like well no everyone knew he was a piece of shit so it didn't do any damage.

0:42:36 Heather: I mean, yes, right? So for that reason, that is part of how we exclude B, is just like you were thinking, it sounds close, but it's not correct. Yeah.

0:42:46 Thomas: Yeah I kind of mashed together what feels feels like two different things.

0:42:51 Heather: That's how we get C as our correct answer.

0:42:52 Thomas: Holy moly.

0:42:53 Heather: Got it right, which is C, admitted because it is relevant as to whether Jenny Jenny crossed the red light on this occasion. Yes.

0:42:59 Thomas: Oh, wow. That feels good. That was a tough one.

0:43:04 Heather: And this is the habit answer. This is saying that Jenny had a habit of crossing only during the green light and never on the red light. Yeah.

0:43:12 Thomas: And it very carefully avoided saying that word, which is great. Thank you, Test, for avoiding saying the thing that it is. Not that I don't know that it would have helped me, me, but it is interesting. It sort of, it sort of skips that terminology and goes straight to why like habit is evidence is okay. You know, it's like, yeah, because it's relevant to this instance. Okay. Well, I think this is a, maybe a lesson in that I really did try to to what makes logical sense in a vacuum in terms of just evidence in general. And I can't say that that's going to get you there all the time, but in this event, when, when the other their answers all kind of had something wrong with them. It's like, okay, that was enough for me to be like, all right, I'm going with C. And well, who knows if that was a methodology that will always work, but it seems to have worked in this instance.

0:44:01 Heather: On a hot streak.

0:44:02 Thomas: Three, baby. I'm back above 60%. I mean, 61.22. Wow. That's incredible. Can I just say of myself that my score of a D minus is really good. All right. Well, I'm excited. That's awesome. Going to have to find out who else avoided getting hit by a car, who our big winners are on the places. I'll tell you the big loser is it's me because I still can't do the blue sky post correctly. Don't know what's wrong with me. I think I have a disease, but I'm going to make sure it's right this time. I did everything right, except it was the wrong question, which is a pretty big miss.

0:44:44 Thomas: You can't be posting the entirely wrong question, but impossibly people still participated on blue sky. So I do appreciate the grit. But yeah, sorry about that. I Uh, am going to endeavor to do it correctly. The turn over a new year, new me. I think that was last year that I made that mistake so we'll say that's it but let's start with reddit where who's our big winner over on reddit .com slash r slash open args

0:45:11 Heather: Intentional rounding. IntentionAL rounding said, my answer is C, the cafe owner needs to be investigated for stalking Jenny. What with his creepy years long pastime of making a double mocha latte and then running outside to ogle her crossing the street.

0:45:18 Thomas: Love

0:45:28 Heather: Having said that his testimony is admissible because if we take this back pattern to its logical probabilistic conclusion. It must be true that someone who's seen me order five soft tacos with Diablo sauce an infinite amount of times has relevant information about the likelihood of me ordering five soft tacos with Diabolo sauce this time. Great work. Intentional rounding is correct. The answer is C.

0:45:49 Thomas: It yes that is that had everything that answer sorry we have to start sorry to all the other winners we had to start with that one because that was a really good one It may be all downhill from there. No, probably not. Knowing our listeners, there's even more good stuff to come. And I'll bring us our blue sky winner. And You they have a great name, Mike Slutson, BLM. So their actual blue sky handle, this Mike Hudson sucks. Mike Hutson sucks, but their displayed name is Mike Slutzon, BLN. I don't know. I don' t know what' s going on. I don't know if it's Mike Hudson, but then they go by Slutson just sometimes for kicks. Either way, I love it. Thomas convinced me that the answer is C. No one knows for sure, so the judge has to decide which is more likely. And this kind of evidence is valuable and allowed for that. They got the right answer. Not sure about their reasoning, Heather. You can tell me. But they got the right answer, and their name is Mike Slutston. So, yeah,

0:45:53 Heather: Love it. It's great. Yeah the reason is the judge doesn't quite decide in the sense that this is habit evidence so we're really just looking for a person's regular response to a specific set of circumstances and that ends up being admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with their habit on a particular occasion like our friend was saying from reddit um they order that diablo sauce on their tacos all the time every single time uh then they're definitely it's relevant to whether they're ordering it on their tacos this time and it's the same situation that we have here with jenny and on

0:47:10 Thomas: Think I'm going to do a crime thriller that makes use of this and like does the same thing every single day for like 10 years and then does a different thing. But then like that's the key evidence or something, you know, and I'll be like, I always do this and that's how I'll get away with it. Yeah, it wasn'T like the poison will be in the Diablo sauce that I didn't order. I don't know. I'll figure it out. Anyway, yeah, I had I got to say there was an incorrect answer that I think is one of my favorite incorrect answers ever. Also on Blue Sky. By the way, Blue Sky, I will do it right next time. Open args on Blue Sky. Follow it. Plus, Great on the blue sky. Oh, a Twitter Twitter.

0:47:23 Heather: That's your perfect crime you're gonna we're just workshopping it now oh

0:47:54 Thomas: Answer incorrect bar exam questions. Dan said, I've been listening to Thomas play T3B for five years and I ain't never seen him get a rules of evidence question right. So I'm choosing B. Oh no. Tough, but fair. Completely fair. I actually think that's a really good methodology because I never get these right. Oh, so meta. Witnessed me get these wrong wrong over and over and over again and so Dan Ardren's over here to testify that I would get it wrong and then he's wrong I actually got it right this time so there you go let that be a lesson or something I don't know very meta and then of course we've got to go to patreon for the biggest of big winners We've got No Country for Old Ben on Patreon .com slash law, who pretty much had a textbook answer, Answer. But that, I mean, I love you No Country For Old Ben, but if it feels like you're just using the teacher's edition or something, it's too good. I'm going to to shout shout you out for the too good textbook answer. You did a great job. No Country For Old Ben. But I'm going to give the prize because to putting it all on red at the Pigeon Casino. Want it to be a yes answer. The testimony feels relevant. I think D is correct, but not specific enough. So it's not the best answer. So I agree with Thomas that it's C. Hey, that's answered

0:48:06 Heather: Sting oh it is hey

0:49:10 Thomas: Like a true non lawyer. I love it. Whereas no country for old Ben has this like complete facts and like Like, everything in sorry, Ben. You did well, but I'm giving it to putting it all on red at the Pigeon Casino.

0:49:23 Heather: I need to know more about this casino place

0:49:24 Thomas: Yeah, the Pidgeon Casina. Oh, yeah, that's a reference to Where There's Woke. Okay, Sorry, I am a little slow today. At the pigeon casino. So it's like there's plug for Where There'S Woke, This was my wife, Lydia, doing an amazing job where, people are trying, like the Elon Musk types, they're saying here's what they can look at to defund, you know, and they've got all this dumb science research we're funding. You break it down, it's like, first off, a bunch of it's from like 10 years ago. It's like it's terrible. It's not anything. And they just, what they do is they describe scientific studies in really stupid ways. But one of them did involve pigeons and gambling. So that's is weird. As You I joke, you can't just do the science that's going to be the right science first try.

0:50:09 Thomas: It's like definitionally not how it works. So, you know, to learn more about the world, we have to do some weird science -y things with pigeons. That's just, that's, I don't make the rules. That's how science works. We fund it to the tune of like $5. So it's so stupid for the right to be up in arms about a pigeon casino.

0:50:08 Heather: Vinnie

0:50:29 Thomas: Is there now organized pigeon crime? Yes. Are there several bodies buried under the pigeon casino? Sure. But it's science. Right.

0:50:44 Thomas: We It's at least two, I want to say. Might be only two, but I'm kind of hoping it's three. You're never going to believe this. I am on a three question streak. Got to keep this going. I gotto keep this alive. So this, we'll get a fresh question. All right, question 54. have a responsibility to the world to get this right for four -question streak. Here we go.

0:51:08 Heather: A local veterinarian regularly rescued a variety of injured animals that he found in his neighborhood. Would keep the injured animals in his backyard sanctuary, where they were safe from harm and unable to escape while they recovered. They were fully healed, Vinny would release them back into the wild. Day, Vinnie found an injured skunk rummaging around the trash bins while he was walking on a local hiking trail. Brought the skunk to his sanctuary, where he nursed it back to health, then released it onto the hiking trail where he originally found it. Following week, the skunk bit a child who was playing in front of Vinny's house while the skunk was wandering around the neighborhood.

0:51:44 Heather: The child's parents sued Vinny. Is Vinny strictly liable for the skonk bite?

0:51:49 Thomas: My. Strictly liable?

0:51:51 Heather: Yes because Vinny released the skank onto the hiking trail. Yes, because Vinnie nursed the skunk back to health. No because Vinney did not possess the skunck when it bit the child. Wild? Or D, no, because Vinny never purchased the skunk as a pet.

0:52:05 Thomas: Wow. Yes, because Vinny actually trained the skunk to bite even harder. The series of Rocky montages. Okay, this is fantastic. I love this. How does one even categorize this question? Skunk law. Well, strict liability. I think that's I guess. Yeah, it's got to be torts I think. So I'm going to go with torts. So strict liability, I mean it's interesting because I think they're trying to talk about, you know if you have a dangerous animal in your backyard and it bites somebody there might be some strict liability going on from memory but is a little different isn't it once almost like the the parents are trying to look at it like hey Vinny your skunk bit our thing our child and like approaching it like Like this your pet skunk and then you had it out and it bit someone versus what the fact pattern, you know, how more how it reads, which is like this guy is nursing skunks back to health for some reason and then releasing them. Um, I not, he'S not increasing the number of dangerous animals short of like, I guess, I, I Guess he's, heS healing ones that are sick, but like, he 'S not, He's not out there like just putting skunks random places. Like he got the skunk from a place to begin with and he put it back where he found it. In his backyard sanctuary, they were safe from harm and unable to escape. Don't know if that matters. Once they were fully healed and ready to bite, he would release them back into the wild. One day, Vinny found an injured skunk rummaging around the trash bins while he was walking on a local hiking trail. So it's where he found it. The skunk, cures the skunks, sharpens the skunky teeth a little bit, and following week oh the following come on man how do they even know it's the same skunk that would be my that'd be my argument does he like mark him or something is it like a tattoo how in the world is it wearing like an outfit or something like vinnie'S veterinarian you it has his like logo on it or something do you know that's the some skunk a week later their skunks are one thing they all look identical. Zero, I don't know if this is racist to say, there's no, I cannot tell skunks apart. They're all one skunk. But that's no part of his defense. I think it should be part of Vinny's defense, but it's not. Maybe he had medical, like, maybe the skunk had like bandage, like stitches or something. Like they knew it was Vinny skunkk. Donno, man. He put the skonk back where he found it. I dont really know how this could be strict liability. That seems crazy. How long would this strict liability last? Like if you heal a skunk, like the circle of life was meant to take that skunk off of our planet and you intervene. So you're now liable for the skunk forever. I don't, I don'T know. This seems stupid. Is Vinny strictly liable? Yes, because Vinny released the skulk onto the hiking trail. So that would be, I mean, that's the strict liability type answer, you know, like if for some reason that's it. So, so if I want a yes answer, it seems plausible. B, yes, because of any nurse, the skunks are liable. Help that that can't be right that just cannot be right I no I'm gonna say no on b c I'm heavily leaning toward a no answer but I'll keep a as a plausible yes answer if I can'T think of how but just in case c no because vinnie did not possess the skunk when it bit the child possess the Skunk now what does it mean by possess does it means possesses and And like in that moment, he doesn't mean possesses like I now I'm no longer a skunk owner. I used to be the owner of a skulk and possessor of a Skunk, but I am no longer. That was last week. This is this week.

0:55:34 Thomas: I don't I think it means it in that way, but usually possession is more like temporary, like it's in your possession at the time. So I'm just I just don't know if the logic is like, well, he wasn't with the skunk in that that moment versus no, because he was, he was no longer like the owner of the skunk. Cause like, those are different things. If my dog, if I, if my dog gets out of the backyard and bites someone, it's not like, well, I didn't possess it when it bit, I wasn't like with it. It was on its own arrest that dog. But I am the owner Of the dog. I say, I, it's my wife's dog. Going to jail. It's her officer. It's her dog. I swear. Take her away. Uh, um, it possessed as in like the dog owner in that moment or possesses in like, if you, ifyou had the skunk on you, like you take the skank on a nature show and you're like, here, check out my skunk. And then it bites someone. Does it mean it in that sense? I don't know. I'm not sure if this matters, but I I don't know okay d no because vinnie never purchased the skunk as a pet that can't be it that can'T be it if I didn't purchase our dog but instead our dog had puppies and one of those puppies is the dog we're talking about I never purchased it but so therefore I can let it get away with biting people that canT be right either man maybe it maybe maybe I am leaning towards C. because Vinny did not possess the skunk. I guess, I just wish it said like own or, maybe there isn't a better word for that. Like own the skulk isn't the word. Maybe possess would be the word you'd have to use. I don't, I do not possess that skunk currently. I'm between skunks. Will say that I do think I solidly can reduce it to A A or C? Because I think B, because Vinny nursed the skunk back to health, I don't think that act by itself says anything. Because Vinny could nurse the skulk back to healthy, and then launch the skunt into outer space, and it bites a Martian, and then it's... I just don't think the fact that he nursed it back to help could be what creates that strict liability. That be it. It has to be something to do with, if anything, it has to do like where you keep it or where you put it. And so if I were going with a yes answer, I think I would go with A, yes, because Vinny released the skunk onto the hiking trail, which I mean, I could see the law being like, OK, sorry, all the other crap isn't really relevant. If you are the one who dealt the skulk, who smelt the skuk, then you are The One Who Dealt the Skunk. I don't know. If you're the one Who released this animal onto the Hiking Trail and this animal bit a child, you're strictly liable. And strict liability is that kind of weird thing where it just is and it can seem to defy logic. So I can see A being a pretty plausible answer. I don'T know if this, question if, is really trying to be tricky and therefore it's A and, and like all the facts of the question that make it seem stupid. Like, yeah, he just, he didn't, we're net zero on skunks. He didn't add any skunks into the wilderness. He just like repaired one, put it back where it was. Seems not like skunks are like like velociraptors, you know? And you're like, well, naturally, if you heal a killing machine like a skunk, it's going to bite a child. I don't think that's true, but I also think this could be some weird strictly liability thing. The only thing, and the thing that's making me double worry that it might be A is that I don'T love this, the no, because Vinny did not possess the skunk when it bit the child .I don't love that word, possess the Skunk. D, no, No, because Vinny never purchased the skunk as a pet. Like, if that's it, then I don't know, man.

0:59:10 Thomas: Purchase can't be right. Like, it can't be the difference between liability and not liability is if you bought it versus if, like, what if somebody just gave you a Velociraptor and then you release it into the wild then it bit somebody. You're like, well, I never bought it. Show me a receipt. No liability. You can't find a receipt and I'm free to go. Don' t know. That can't beat it. So I'm pretty solidly A and C. questions always get me because answer is it's strict liability. So often it's just like it re -describes what's happening and it's like, yes, because of that. This seems too unreasonable. I just think that got to stick with C. I'm between A and C, I'm going with C, I think, I in the way it's a veterinarian. So I could see possessed being like, yeah, you're treating an animal. So for that time, it's in your possession. So like, if it got up out of the, if the skunk gets up, rips the IV out, like in the movies, like, oh, I got to get out of here. Runs out ofthe hospital, bites a kid, then, then maybe a different story. So I'm going with C, final answer. Right. If you'd like to play along, here's how you do it. Step one, you could go to reddit .com slash r slash open args. Put your your answer there it tracks all the stats it's really cool it's a fun community go there talk to other people who listen to OA it's fun or go to blue sky and I guarantee I will have put up the question properly I will done it the right question even can you believe it and you can quote skeet that correct question that I put up and give your answer or finally go to patreon .com slash law and And go to the post for this episode and put your answer there. Right. Well, Heather, watch out for skunks on the trails. And stay safe out there. And we'll see you next week.

1:00:50 Heather: Yeah, don't get sprayed or bit. Well,

1:00:51 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.

1:01:08 Matt: Another part of the decision yeah because right her own findings

1:01:08 Thomas: Is her referencing another part of her decision oh what was that like an old timey telephone sound

1:01:15 Matt: I didn't hear anything I really didn't yeah

1:01:17 Thomas: Messing with me you there now organized pigeon crime? Yes. Are