DoJ Memo Written In Crayon On Olive Garden Kids Menu Directs SDNY to Drop Eric Adams Case

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 your mission. That is your 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 1124. I'm Thomas Smith and that over there is real-life attorney Matt Cameron. How are you doing, Matt?

0:01:05 Matt: I'm just seeing if I can plot my way back from Curacao through Istanbul.

0:01:08 Thomas: What?

0:01:09 Matt: No flights, though. No direct flights. I always try to go through Istanbul when I can. How

0:01:12 Liz: Hi,

0:01:14 Thomas: This Is A Wednesday With Matt and another voice you hear. It's Liz Skeen. How, how you doing, Liz?

0:01:19 Liz: Everyone. I'm doing well besides what about to talk about.

0:01:25 Thomas: Yeah, this is fun. A little, uh, GG, I know, season one reunion or whatever. Uh, there was a memo written, um, someone who Liz is the number one admirer of. And so we have Liz on as an expert to talk about it. Can't you haven't seen the news, Bove wrote a very, very questionable memo though. Directing the District of New York to dismiss the case against Mayor Eric Adams. Listeners may remember that that case is very solid and definitely should not be dismissed. That's just one man's opinion. So we're going to to get to the bottom of that. Is outrageous. I cannot believe this is happening. I'm so glad to have Liz here too. Going to go line by line on this horribly written memo and talk about it. We've also got T3BE. So we'll get Heather on later. Uh. What an action-packed episode. So after this quick break, uh get to it. Please support the show patreon.com/law. And you don't have to hear the ads? Right. Where do we want to begin? We're going to read this thing. It seems like it's not quite on the level of Rudy Giuliani. Is, you know, lawyer. Who knows?

0:02:30 Matt: Could it be, though? There's just no way.

0:02:32 Thomas: But on a scale of that to competent legal writing, where are we?

0:02:36 Matt: It's more just that I think they don't care if we read it or not. I don't think they care if it makes sense or not, it's just garbage.

0:02:42 Liz: Pretty poorly written. I mean, I wouldn't say the sentence structure is good. There aren't subject headlines. There's a a single case that's cited in it um like case law there's just you that was not the best written uh I have seen um put it that way um and I found it actually at various points to be really hard to read not just because of the content of just because of how poorly written it was directing

0:02:43 Matt: It is, and just for context, this is the February 10th memo written by Emil Bove, who's right now the second command at DOJ, I don't know really what the word is, but essentially telling, directing.

0:03:14 Thomas: Directing. Yeah.

0:03:15 Matt: No, it's true. No, its true. It's just so strange to me to see this. But yes, directing the SDNY to dismiss the case against Eric Adams, all charges.

0:03:14 Liz: Actually directing yes

0:03:23 Thomas: Okay. Is it's It's not like asking a judge to do something, though, is it?

0:03:27 Liz: It is not no it is it it is a sort of an internal directive. And I think it's worth noting, right? You know, there's, when we think about DOJ, there's kind of two sort of, I mean, we can think about different ways of parsing DOJ. But over down in DC, there is what we call main justice or what I would call main justice back when I did white collar. And, you know, main justice is kind of setting out certain priorities. They're doing their prosecutions. They are overseeing, you know, prosecutions themselves. Um, each, um, district has a U.S. attorney for that. That district and underneath that U S attorney, many assistant U S attorneys also known as a AUSAs. And so this is a directive from main justice, which is where Emil Bove is the deputy attorney general to SDNY to the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern district of New York saying, this is what you should do. And I also think what's notable is, and we've talked about this, I think, at some of those various points, but, know, you SDNY is, you most famous sort prosecutorial entity in the country. It's nicknamed the Sovereign District of New York. They're famous for taking on really, really tough prosecutions, high profile prosecutions. Famous for trying to, like, you knows, fight turf with Eastern District and trying to get a prosecution out from them. Famous for, you breaking up the mob. Famous for prosecuting Sam Bankman-Fried. Famous for prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell. Of these things. It's, you know, it's a really, really high -profile office that wants to take high -Profile cases. And it's called sovereign because they don't want to do what Main Justice necessarily wants them to do.

0:03:29 Matt: Worse. Yeah, I was going to say, not necessarily famous for taking orders directly from the president or DOJ because that's not how this is supposed to work at all. All. Supposed to be a lot more independence than we're seeing in this memo.

0:05:09 Thomas: So this is like the boss's boss's boss saying, stop doing what you're doing. Though this mayor, Adams, seems like the most guilty person to ever guilt. I mean, it doesn't seem like it's a close call in my mind from what we've seen. And they're just saying, just stop. Just done. No more. Wow. Wow. Oh,

0:05:26 Matt: Just a reminder, you can check out 08 -1073 for our complete review of the indictment. We had a lot of fun looking through the many ways in which Eric Adams sold out to Turkey for travel perks, basically. We don't have to go over that now, but that's a pretty solid case. And it was scheduled for trial in right?

0:05:42 Liz: April April 25th. I mean, the parties were pretty actively litigating a bunch of different issues. The defense had brought a couple of sanctions motions arguing that they didn't have a fair trial. The person who is the interim head of SDNY, a named Danielle Sassoon, who had been an AUSA aligned prosecutor there until the previous appointed head of HDNY had resigned in December. Remember, she was actively involved in this case and was filing motions under and letters under her own name, saying or less this is an incredibly strong case and we're proceeding a trial up until about a week ago or

0:05:44 Thomas: Man.

0:06:18 Liz: Even less than that. Yeah. I

0:06:20 Thomas: Can we sue for the loss of gavel gavel content that we might be facing with this trial not happening? Who do we who do we sue? Do we have standing?

0:06:30 Liz: Mean, it would have been an incredible trial.

0:06:31 Thomas: Yeah. Come on. So good.

0:06:33 Matt: And he's up for re -election in November, and this was supposed to be for April. And that's one of the reasons that they're saying they're dismissing it, right? It's too political, too close to the election?

0:06:41 Thomas: I guess we'll find out in this terribly written memo.

0:06:43 Matt: We should read it. Yeah.

0:06:45 Thomas: It's short enough. Why don't we just read? OK, here we go.

0:06:44 Liz: Let's read this terrible letter.

0:06:48 Thomas: So we got memorandum for acting U.S. attorney yeah yeah southern district of new york like you said from the acting deputy attorney general well no name just the just just the title subject dismissal without prejudice okay slightly that's not really up for them to decide is it isn't the judge decide whether it's okay

0:07:05 Matt: That's, yeah, yeah, that's how they request it. But there's a very good reason he's doing it without prejudice, which I'm sure we'll get to in a second.

0:07:10 Thomas: Without prejudice of prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams. You are directed, as authorized by the Attorney General, to dismiss the pending charges in United States v. Adams, whatever -y stuff, as soon as is practicable subject to the following conditions. One, the defendant must agree in writing to dismissal without prejudice. The defendant must agree in writing that he is not a prevailing party under the Hyde Amendment. What? And three, the matter shall be reviewed by the confirmed U .S. attorney in the Southern District of New York following the November 2025 mayoral election based on consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth below.

0:07:11 Liz: The Hyde

0:07:52 Matt: So very quickly, Liz, what's the Hyde Amendment?

0:07:54 Liz: Amendment is just an issue of getting attorney's fees. So the prevailing party means like the winning party. So he's entitled to attorney fees. So basically they're saying we're not going to be paying Alex Spiro. Sorry.

0:08:00 Matt: He's not getting attorney's fees out of this. Sure. Who's, I'm certain, very expensive.

0:08:08 Liz: Expensive.

0:08:08 Matt: All right. Right. And

0:08:09 Thomas: Am I crazy? Isn't the Hyde Amendment the one that doesn't let the funds being used for abortions? This just the same name thing?

0:08:14 Matt: That's what I thought, too.

0:08:16 Liz: This is this is another Hyde Amendment.

0:08:18 Matt: Different.

0:08:18 Liz: I looked it up.

0:08:18 Matt: He did a lot of amendments, apparently.

0:08:21 Liz: He's a he's a big amendment guy. Who knew?

0:08:22 Thomas: That was very confusing to me for a second I was like I'm pretty sure

0:08:24 Liz: I read this and I texted a former federal prosecutor that I knew being like, what? How is the Hyde amendment involved here? And then, yeah, no. And then I Googled it and it's actually, it's pretty straightforward. So, whoops.

0:08:40 Matt: Easy enough. But yeah, I just want to point out how important that is, that they are saying that they will review this again after November, so if he is re-elected, which, what are his chances at this point, Liz? Is he going to be re-elected?

0:08:50 Liz: It's really all over the place. I think it's really hard to tell. The thing that I should note though is the mayoral election is in November, but the thing that really matters is the primary. The primary is in June. The primary, you know, he was denied. In New York, we have a a really good matching fund system for elections, and almost everyone participates. Because of, frankly, all his fraudulent behavior, he was actually denied matching funds, which is a huge deal and a huge blow to his campaign.

0:09:13 Thomas: He was like all right it's okay I have a matching fund coming from

0:09:21 Liz: Well, right. I mean, for obvious reasons.

0:09:23 Matt: Well, right, that's a big part of the indictment is that he was abusing the matching fund.

0:09:27 Thomas: Oh getting the fake yeah it's like fake donors so that it it it uh multiplies out Yeah. Wow.

0:09:29 Matt: that'S right. Fake small donors. Yep. But it was actually Turkey. But I just want to point out how important that is that they're keeping him on that leash because they're basically he's going to be owned by Donald Trump at this point because let's keep going. Going.

0:09:40 Thomas: I have more questions, but we could keep going further in it. There shall be no further targeting targeting. Come on. Of Mayor Adams or additional investigative steps prior to that review. And you are further directed to take all steps within your power to cause Mayor Adams's security clearances to be restored. What?

0:09:47 Liz: I know.

0:10:00 Matt: There shall be no further, like he can't, even if he commits a bunch of crimes before, yeah, it's terrible.

0:10:03 Thomas: Is he immune now? What clearance is like don't know what that would be which security what do you have as a mayor of New York

0:10:13 Matt: Has really sophisticated intelligence operations, right? So I understand.

0:10:16 Liz: That's what I imagined. So I think it was probably related to NYPD and any sort of potential terrorism sort of threats and that sort of thing. I, to be honest, I didn't even realize he had security clearances and I wish we never gave him them.

0:10:16 Thomas: Interesting

0:10:26 Matt: Makes sense.

0:10:28 Thomas: My question then would be what can what this AUSA do about that like it doesn't seem like it would be under their purview at all but I could be wrong probably

0:10:35 Liz: It seems odd to me.

0:10:37 Matt: I will point out, actually, Trump revoked Letitia James and Alvin Bragg's security clearances recently. I also learned they had them. And similar, though. Federal classified stuff.

0:10:43 Thomas: A different kind Right. Then this would be a federal. So this

0:10:48 Matt: Yeah, it's federal.

0:10:49 Liz: I just don't think that the SDNY is responsible for issuing security clearancers. So that's what was confusing to me, right?

0:10:55 Matt: Maybe recommendations. Or maybe because pending trial, he can't have. I don't know.

0:10:59 Thomas: The Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength. What conclusion? That's not a conclusion. Whatever. Without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based. I'm curious what other thing you would use, which are issues on which we defer to the U.S. Attorney's Office at the time at At this time.

0:11:07 Matt: That we have to dismiss it. Okay, this sentence made me crazy. Like, we don't do this. We don't tell you anything about the case, but we're deferring to you. But also, we're telling you to dismiss him.

0:11:21 Liz: I lost my mind.

0:11:26 Thomas: Well, that's I mean, it's yeah,

0:11:29 Liz: Like we, we're going to defer to you on this, on the, all of these things, but yes, but, but, but you must dismiss. It's insane, right.

0:11:36 Matt: You say it's a good case? Sure. Why not? Dismiss.

0:11:37 Thomas: I bet it would be a wonderful case if we let you do it, but we're not going to.

0:11:43 Matt: And we're totally deferring do you?

0:11:44 Thomas: Yeah. Moreover, as I said during our recent meetings, that seems like it's switching the the language. Okay, now it's a first person thing.

0:11:45 Matt: It's amazing.

0:11:52 Liz: It's, yeah, but I mean, we start with the second, then we kind of are hanging in the third, now we're back to first. I mean we're still going, you know, it's all over.

0:11:59 Thomas: As meetings, this directive in no way calls into question the integrity and efforts of the line prosecutors responsible for the case or your efforts in leading those prosecutors in connection with a matter you inherited. However, the Justice Department has determined that dismissal subject to the above described conditions is necessary for two independent reasons.

0:12:22 Matt: Note the wording there very quickly. The line prosecutor, he's saying basically the people who are following orders, they did a good job. But he's obviously saying the prior administration made a mistake by doing this.

0:12:31 Liz: Also he says, as I said during our recent meetings, this directive in no way calls into question your integrity. I mean, so you can actually imagine the conversation. I think that Danielle Sassoon, from what I have done some side research on her, she's not exactly a Trump pawn. I don't think she wants to dismiss this. Again, she was writing letters on the docket. And I imagine that she went into these meetings because she was brought to these meetings down in Main Justice. And I'm sure she said something like, forcing us to do this, telling us to doing this will cause a massive catastrophe in the office. It's going to call into

0:12:34 Thomas: It's so weird.

0:13:08 Liz: Question the integrity of our office, of our prosecutors. I'm sure she said something just like that. So what's really helpful is Emil Bove has come in and said, in fact, nothing to worry about on that front.

0:13:24 Thomas: Okay. A couple more paragraphs here. First, the timing of the charges and more recent public actions by the former U.S. attorney responsible for initiating the case have threatened the integrity of the proceedings, including what? Including by increasing prejudicial pretrial publicity that risks impacting potential witnesses and the jury pool. Yeah

0:13:39 Matt: This is nonsense. You can never prosecute anybody who's running for office under this standard, whatever this standard is. It's nonsense.

0:13:51 Thomas: Who

0:13:51 Liz: Is absolutely absurd. This refers to, and I think it's worth noting, So I took a little trip on the Eric Adams docket and his attorney, Alex Spiro, two times basically brings these motions under federal rule 6E for sanctions, arguing the case should be dismissed because he can't have a fair trial, which isn't really a basis, but neither here nor there. But the things that he points to are, he says, oh, Damian Williams engaged in this publicity and like that taints the jury pool and he can't have it.

0:14:20 Thomas: Is that who's damian williams

0:14:23 Liz: Oh, Damien Williams is the former head of SDNY.

0:14:25 Thomas: Is that attorney responsible okay

0:14:27 Liz: He's the former US attorney. So he was the US attorney who was appointed under Biden. He resigns in December. Danielle Sassoon comes in as the interim. We're waiting for the Trump, you know, confirm me to come in. But Danielle Sasson was sort of picked by the administration. In any case, they had made, like, the defense made two different motions that were flatly denied by the judge saying, no, like this is not what you're citing in terms of pretrial publicity is not a basis to dismiss this case. It's not, you haven't tainted the entire jury pool.

0:14:59 Matt: The three of us know better than pretty much anybody, Donald Trump got a fair trial in New York City. So I don't know. Come on.

0:15:06 Thomas: But that logic too because it for like a moment ago it wasn't about the strength of the evidence or legal theories okay but it is about this actions it's threatening the integrity of the proceedings but then why is a delay gonna fix that I guess you wait for it to to like wear off or something?

0:15:24 Matt: Wait for the election?

0:15:25 Thomas: But how does that change the recent public actions by the former U .S. attorney? That fix it? I guess people will forget. Like, if it's tainted the jury pool or whatever, then waiting a while, I guess that'll wear off. It's a status effect. Okay.

0:15:25 Matt: Like, after the election? I

0:15:41 Liz: Trying to find reason where there is none. I mean, reason one is, we should keep reading because it's even more incoherent.

0:15:43 Matt: It's nonsense.

0:15:47 Thomas: It cannot be ignorant that Mayor Adams criticized the prior administration's immigration policies before charges were filed. And the former U.S. attorney's public actions created appearances of impropriety that implicate the concerns raised in the attorney general's February 5th memorandum regarding restoring the integrity and credibility of the Department of Justice, EO 14147, entitled Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government. These actions and the underlying case have also improperly interfered with Mayor Adams' campaign in the 2025 mayoral election. See Justice Manual, blah, blah. Entitled actions that may have impact on an election.

0:16:31 Liz: Number one is completely incoherent. Seems basically saying in broad terms, it's a politically motivated prosecution. And the most fair thing to do, I'm trying to give it the most generous reading possible. The most fair thing to do is to not continue the prosecution because it's politically motivated and that actually restores integrity to us. I think that is, but it doesn't actually, you know, it cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the previous administration. I mean, it's borderline conspiratorial.

0:16:59 Matt: Well, that's what he's been saying. He's been out in public saying that Joe Biden's prosecuting me because I was criticizing his border policy. So they're just adopting that.

0:17:06 Liz: That's exactly right.

0:17:07 Thomas: Say nothing of the strength of the case, though. Like, well, what if it's a strong case, then I don't really think it would matter that much. I mean, if it's a really strong case, even if you've granted some sort of animus, like, still up to the, you it's so legitimate case. I don't know.

0:17:23 Matt: Didn't just notice this because he was, you about immigration.

0:17:25 Thomas: Didn't make up him taking all these trips and doing all this. Weird second.

0:17:29 Matt: Right. To say it's also very concerning that he's citing the weaponization of federal government, EO in particular, because I think we're going to be seeing a lot of that. This is weaponization. This is doing somebody a favor in exchange for favors, which is, of course, what Eric supposed to be prosecuted for.

0:17:43 Thomas: All right. Last paragraph. Second, the pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams' ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior administration. We are particularly concerned about the impact of the prosecution on Mayor Adams ability to support critical ongoing federal efforts to, quote, protect the American people from the disastrous invasion of unlawful mass migration and resettlement, As described in Executive Order 14165, accomplishing the immigration objectives established by President Trump and the Attorney General is every bit as important, if not more so, as the objectives that the prior administration pursued by releasing violent criminals. Oh, my God. By releasing violent criminals such as Victor Bout, the merchant of death. Accordingly, based on these additional concerns that are distinct from the weaponization problems, dismissal without prejudice is also necessary at this time. Is the worst writing. That is horrible writing.

0:18:32 Matt: So stupid. It's so stupid. And everything in this is stupid. Yeah.

0:18:51 Liz: So, it's horrible, right? And I think it's worth noting there's two footnotes here.

0:18:55 Matt: Very bad.

0:18:56 Liz: Of them is, after are particularly concerned about the impact on his ability to support critical federal efforts to protect American people from mass migration resettlement, they say, there's footnote number one, your office, and that means SDNY, correctly noted in a February 3rd, 2025 memorandum quotation. As Mr. Beauvais clearly stated to defense counsel during our meeting on January 31st, 2025, the government is not offering to exchange dismissal of a criminal case for Adams's assistance on immigration enforcement.

0:19:31 Matt: Just prominently mentioning it in this memo for some reason. A lot.

0:19:32 Thomas: Just doing that. Yeah. But

0:19:34 Liz: The lady doth protest too much. It's also a very incoherently written footnote, but they're trying to say like, Like, see, also, your office even noted that Mr. Beauvais is not offering to dismiss this for his help, even though they're saying that.

0:19:50 Matt: It's most of the paragraph. It's

0:19:51 Thomas: It's also, why are footnoting that their office noted something you were saying? I don't even understand that. As Mr. Bove clearly stated, that

0:19:57 Matt: Just making them complicit in this, I guess.

0:20:01 Liz: Either of you have some insight to this. Is this like a MAGA thing? But I find the reference to Victor Bout to be totally bizarre, and has nothing to do with the Eric Adams case. It

0:20:11 Thomas: Whole sentence is a crime against humanity. It's so stupid.

0:20:16 Liz: I mean, I don't know. He was part of a prisoner exchange and we got

0:20:19 Matt: Griner, right?

0:20:19 Thomas: Oh, was that that one? Okay. But just that just I know I know that some things are more important than grammar.

0:20:29 Thomas: But this is the sentence accomplishing the immigration objectives established by President Trump and the attorney general is every bit as important, if not more so as, the objectives that the prior administration pursued by releasing violent criminals such as victor bout the merchant of death which

0:20:48 Matt: Then he drops a footnote to point out that Victor Bout is now seen to be active again as an arms dealer, and back to it. He's just gratuitously pointing out a deal that they didn't think was good. And the objective of that deal was to get one American released, Brittney Griner. I think that was a good objective. It has, as we've been talking about, nothing to do with anything or immigration

0:21:02 Thomas: To do with eric adams or immigration yeah it's Like what what nothing on no level does this make sense I

0:21:11 Matt: Is it maybe like, makes you deals with Putin too? I mean, I really don't even know what he's trying to say here.

0:21:16 Liz: I found it to be like totally bizarre. I don't even know how that made it past.

0:21:22 Thomas: What what?

0:21:22 Liz: I will note that past. Yeah. I don't know. I'm like I'm Like, who's the who checks?

0:21:26 Thomas: Nothing. Nobody's in charge. The children are running the thing.

0:21:31 Liz: I yeah, I will know Victor was prosecuted by SDNY. Once again, emphasizing they do high profile confidence.

0:21:36 Thomas: Is that what it is?

0:21:38 Liz: That's that's but it's, that's, it's that's the most tenuous connection. They've prosecuted a lot. I mean, I don't know. So what?

0:21:42 Thomas: But it's just, this is, actually, I'm going to go ahead and say this sentence is as bad as the Giuliani thing. And it's very similar because it's a way to bring up a thing that's no actual logic whatsoever that makes any sense. It's nothing it's the same as when he's like and of course as your dad said when he was doing and then when they accidentally confessed to the judge's father's murder it's

0:22:06 Liz: I mea, it' exactly. Yeah. Honestly, that' fair. It, it really is just a completely irrelevant dropping in like, oh, you know, your dad.

0:22:10 Thomas: Like that same thing yeah

0:22:14 Matt: If you could pull back to this paragraph, because he's saying, based on these separate concerns, which are that we think that he's not been able to focus on immigration the way we want him to, but also we're not making this deal for him to do less on immigration, but he's going to. And we also reserve the right to start prosecuting him again after November. So what's the message here? It's pretty clear that they're saying they're putting a leash on him. And if he doesn't drop the sanctuary city policy to the extent that he can and have New York City cooperate with ICE, that he is going to to be back on the hook it's hard to miss it's disgusting it's disgusting

0:22:46 Thomas: But the footnote

0:22:36 Liz: Yeah, that''s exactly right. That''s exaclty right. It''s absolutely repulsive.

0:22:46 Thomas: Says it's not that matt so yeah

0:22:49 Matt: Well yeah my bad what is the status of this right now where it doesn't mean anything yet yeah

0:22:54 Liz: Talk about where things are at, because I think it's notable. I've seen some reporting from major outlets that implied that the case was actually dismissed. It has not been dismissed. There's been no activity. I mean, you know, we're recording this on Tuesday evening. There'S BEEN NO ACTIVITY ON THE DOCKET, ON THE PACER DOCKET, INDICATING DISMISSAL. And what they would need to do, and it's not just like that the prosecutor gets to dismiss this. There is, in fact, a federal rule of criminal procedure that governs it. That's federal rule 48. It came up with Michael Flynn when they tried to dismiss the Michael Flynn prosecution, the previous administration, and had some difficulty doing that. But it requires for ask the permission of the judge presiding over the case to allow them to dismiss the case. They would have to file some sort of Rule 48 memo making this request, and the judge would probably schedule briefing or a hearing on it and would make a determination. Discrimination. Judge here, Dale Ho, doesn't appear to me to be some sort of Trump pawn. Certainly not. He's ruled against the defense a number of times. Could deny this motion. He could deny the government's request to dismiss the case. It still doesn't leave us in a great place, though, because what

0:24:04 Thomas: Because then what happens do they are they forced to prosecute it still yeah

0:24:08 Liz: Could just ghost on the case or just not prosecute it. They could also appeal it to the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit might say that they have to. Supreme Court here, but these things happen so infrequent. This is so infrequent and unusual. Even then, it just doesn't matter. Even if he said, no, you can't dismiss the case, he can't force SDNY to do anything.

0:24:29 Liz: So we're kind of just stuck here. Mean, I would just say I, the best thing is, you know, we do have this primary coming out and, uh, been seeing a lot of people just encouraging everyone in New York, get registered, make sure you're registered as a Democrat and, you vote to get Eric Adams out.

0:24:46 Thomas: I mean come on right I I mean, how in the world could this person still be supported by anyone? You worried? Is this, are his numbers good or something?

0:24:54 Liz: Know, he, his election, um, four years ago was pretty interesting. Um, York has ranked choice voting, uh is kind of cool and he almost lost to Kathryn Garcia. Um, had the largest number of first choice votes, but he didn't have a great number of, you know second, third, fourth or whatever. And so she almost came really not that many votes away from actually becoming our mayor, which is a real shame because she would have been Catherine Garcia was the head of sanitation. She's She's a career bureaucrat. She was amazing. Certainly much better than Eric Adams. But I think that Eric Adams is in trouble because I can't see him adding to any of his constituents. No one, like he's not getting any new voters and he might still get some of his old previous base, but I can'T see them being as motivated. And there's a lot of good candidates. And he doesn't have matching funds. He doesn't have that. Yeah. Like he's really hamstrung on fundraising. Fundraising. Matching funds are eight to one in New York. It's an incredible deal. So yeah, that

0:25:55 Matt: That's why I did it that's what I used it uh

0:25:57 Liz: Actually why he engaged in fraud. Yeah.

0:26:00 Matt: Just wanted to ask you though very quickly we could take two minutes on this maybe but as I understand it the sanctuary law essentially not honoring ice detainers unless there's an actual judicial warrant, with very minor exceptions. This is law. It's passed by city council and signed by the mayor. So can he even corruptly do what Trump wants him to do?

0:26:13 Liz: I don't think so. I mean, not under the law.

0:26:19 Matt: Yeah, for what that's worth.

0:26:20 Liz: Under the law, I mean if we're just not following the law anymore, sure. I mean, he is the executive. But yeah, I don't think his administration is particularly competent at really anything, including following or not following the law. But yeah, New York has these laws that I think do exactly what you just said, Matt. So you can't do ICE detainers except under limited exceptions. It does apply if someone's charged with a violent, by the way, a violent felony, you can get an ICE detaining. It's just it excludes, on the most part, nonviolent crimes for ICE detains. I don't see how he gets around these laws. He also has a very unfavorable city counsel to him at the moment. Yeah, I don't know how much he can help Trump, but I'm sure there are ways. I mean, listen, he's on a leash. I don't know.

0:27:02 Matt: This wouldn't have been done if there wasn't something that Trump was getting out of it,

0:27:05 Thomas: Yeah. I was just going to posit some theories on that. I think for Trump, it's sort of like a win -win where, for one, it with us, of course. He loves to do that. It's also, it just bolsters like his storyline about his prosecution. You know, it's just like, oh, yeah, everything was politicized during the Biden administration. You know it's like part it's, like, in that universe. Yeah.

0:27:25 Matt: Weaponization. Yep.

0:27:27 Thomas: It's like it's in that fake universe like in that that fake universe of his this also would be true so therefore it sort of bolsters that like reality for them um

0:27:35 Liz: Think that's a good, really good point. Yeah.

0:27:37 Thomas: Also I think uh even if eric adams which he already has but even if he's just rhetorically supporting the trump administration then that's probably a win for them obviously um I don't see a whole lot of loss because the last column the because in would would have to still be the major scandal that this so obviously is but we're incapable as a society of of keeping I can't this is insane the media has failed us so utterly like this is a scandal this is scandal of scandals this is worse

0:28:04 Liz: This is a scandal.

0:28:05 Matt: Pure corruption.

0:28:06 Liz: This is pure corruption.

0:28:06 Thomas: Than watergate this is every like everything and yet there's just the inability all the media can do is say wow unusual you know that's all they can do

0:28:14 Liz: It is quid pro quo that is detailed in a Department of Justice memo.

0:28:19 Matt: To dismiss a quid pro quo prosecution.

0:28:22 Thomas: Reminder of how much the media has failed us. Because there's no... I don't know who else is supposed to do it. Like, I don'T know who ELSE is supposed TO do the job of putting these things into proper context for the people who don't listen to our show or whatever. You know, it'S just like, for the PEOPLE who don'T KNOW about these things, because it'S complicated, it 'S not super easy, the context you get is the media and their reaction to it. And the Trump side has realized that their reaction tops out. It has a very low limit. And so it's a Democrat, you wrong. That's about an eight. And when Trump does the most corrupt thing to ever happen in our presidency, that's about eight point three. And so you're like, well, those are about the same, you know, and there's no there's they just don't have the ability to properly because they think they have to be fair and balanced or, you know, like they don't Have the ability to modulate properly to set tone for what we should be reacting and maybe they can't because I maybe the people who need to hear it aren't hearing them. But I don't think that's true. I think that if they had the ability to scale their the media's outrage, the media media's indignation, which they certainly were able to do about Biden's age. They they're certainly able to get mad about that. Not as much about this.

0:29:32 Matt: I have to point out that Emil Bove already fired dozens of prosecutors, not just from Jack Smith's office, but from DOJ, who pretty much anybody who touched any of the January 6th federal prosecutions, including Trump, of course, and that barely made a ripple. And that's, I think, is even more scandalous potentially than this. Mean, it's terrible. That's the state of the DOJ right now.

0:29:41 Liz: It's disgusting.

0:29:45 Thomas: It's insane. It's written and is not English, is not good grammar. I'm sorry, but that also counts as part of it that that like just to show how like fundamentally unserious these people are.

0:29:54 Matt: It matters. It really does. Yeah. It continues the theme we've been talking about, that fascism requires at least the sheen of law, the patina of of law. And this is what that is. They can point to a memo.

0:30:09 Thomas: It's on the right paper, Matt. It's on the right stationery. So, yeah.

0:30:12 Matt: The judge is going to see the same memo.

0:30:14 Liz: Of course. I mean, the one thing that is odd to me is that sort of second paragraph where they say, oh, reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence, and it doesn't call into question integrity. It is this sort of patina of law, and its throwing this sort of bone at SDNY saying like, no, no no, we still respect the job you're doing could be a really bad case, but it doesn't have to do with your integrity. It's just, there are these two independent reasons that we just have to move forward. And it is very odd because I feel like I haven't seen that sort of thing. I mean, they just fired those prosecutors associated with January with really no explanation. I feel Like I haven's seen quite this little kind of throwing a little bone or patina of explanation. I don't really know what that's about. Other thing I would just note is thinking about this is, this memo doesn't have to be public. This could have been an email to Danielle Sassoon. And I think it raises some questions as to why it was very clearly leaked.

0:31:00 Thomas: I was wondering about that. That literally for Eric Adams to see it?

0:31:09 Liz: One of my questions. Is it for Eric Adams to see that so he knows exactly the leash that he's on?

0:31:14 Thomas: Yeah. Otherwise he wouldn't really know. No. Right. I

0:31:17 Liz: In such public terms?

0:31:19 Thomas: Yeah.

0:31:19 Liz: No. And is it also for, is it to I set up a confrontation with SDNY? If Danielle Sassoon doesn't do this, then he goes ahead and fires her? So many reasons why it could be you've made, is it made public like this, but is it because they want to test how public they can be about doing these completely corrupt, really horrific actions that collapse any sense of independence that DOJ has from the executive? And is that it? I don't know, but it is, it is a choice.

0:31:54 Matt: Even a month in. I think you're right. Yeah, yeah.

0:31:56 Liz: And there's something to be said for that. And we'll just have to see how that that plays out, but it's quite a choice that this is public.

0:32:02 Thomas: Question. Sorry if you already said it. Was this public on purpose or did someone leak it? Did Bove just.

0:32:05 Liz: I think it was purposefully leaked.

0:32:08 Thomas: It was a leak.

0:32:08 Liz: It was, I mean, I I don't think it wasn't put on their website, right? But I think it was kind of sent to all major news outlets because it kind of dropped at the, it kind of seemed to drop simultaneously along with it being issued.

0:32:20 Thomas: This is a mess, but at least we got to have Liz on the show to help us through it. That makes me feel a little better.

0:32:23 Matt: Always a pleasure.

0:32:25 Liz: A pleasure to talk about poor legal writing.

0:32:28 Thomas: Yeah, wow. Well we'll have to keep an eye on. Yeah what what what Eric Adams does. I mean, again, just Yorkers, please. Have them lose the election. Then this, this comes. Well, I don't know. Will it come back? I actually don't even know if they would bother, but at least it has a chance.

0:32:40 Matt: Great question. Who knows?

0:32:42 Liz: I Don't Think They'll Bother, but the one thing we can do to preserve having an independent mayor that isn't on a leash created by Emile Beauvais is to have a new mayor.

0:32:54 Thomas: Get that done, Liz.

0:32:55 Matt: Just want to point out, I'm we've covered on Gavel Gavel, everything that Emile Beauvais did was to to get here to do this in representing Trump. It's just disgusting.

0:33:03 Thomas: Thanks for joining us, Liz and Matt. Matt. Thanks for coming on the Wednesday show. Really appreciate it. Keep an eye on these issues and we'll keep keep an eye on, you any weird immigration stuff that Eric Adams tries to do.

0:33:13 Liz: Thank you, Thomas.

0:33:14 Thomas: Right. Talk soon.

0:33:15 Matt: Ya.

0:33:19 Thomas: Show is brought to you by Quince. Quince is where I do all my clothes shopping now. I love Quince because know that no matter what I'm looking at, no matter what catches my eye on quince.com, I know I'm going to get something high end, but at prices, that aren't actually affordable. Still chili out there, so if you haven't already make sure to check out quince's mongolian cashmere crewneck sweaters starting at only 50 they also have iconic 100 leather jackets and versatile flow knit active wear they've really got all climates and you conditions and activities covered over there on quince I've gotten everything from athletic wear to my bathroom towels that I keep telling you about that I can't get enough of. There's much towel, so much tea per tea on those bad boys. Like four towels per towel. Is inflation in a good way. Was using towels indexed to towels from like the great depression. I just got my quince bathroom towels that are indexed select the year 3000. It's amazing. I got them for affordable prices is because quince partners directly with top factories they cut out the cost of the middleman and they passed the savings to us and they only work with factories that use safe ethical and responsible manufacturing practices along with premium fabrics and finishes quince is great indulge in affordable luxury go go to quince.com/OA for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365 day returns. More time, Quince dot com.

0:34:43 Clip: Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar will eat you.

0:34:49 Thomas: How are you doing this week?

0:34:50 Heather: Pretty great. How are you doing?

0:34:52 Thomas: Good. Pretty good um curious how this question went. It seemed very straightforward which is always make that always makes me nervous so yeah it's really like it's a lose -lose you know because it's like either I got it right and it's like oh that was so easy obviously or I just got it humiliatingly wrong you know where it's just Just like I was totally certain it was one thing. It was the other. So it's a real, you in that way. But let's find out. What question did we answer?

0:35:02 Heather: You're like, it can't be this good. We were talking about Sally going to the flea market and trying to buy some handmade bookends. And then when she turns to the person next to her and says like, how much are these bookends? The person next door said $350. She goes great, hands it over and then the person walks away for us only to discover.

0:35:39 Thomas: For nothing. Fancy bookends. What are diamond encrusted bookends? Like what gold bookends, I guess.

0:35:48 Heather: Yes, very fine craftsmanship.

0:35:51 Thomas: She's the kind of person who's like, wow, what a deal. I got to buy these right away. No more questions.

0:35:56 Heather: They've got the yellow tag that says, sale, so there it is.

0:35:59 Thomas: Yeah that's right they crossed out like 700 and then put 350

0:36:04 Heather: Therefore, even So we're trying to figure out what crime at common law our bystander committed regarding the $350. And our options were A, no crime, B, robbery, C, extortion, and D, obtaining property by false pretenses. You had said that the answer was D, obtaining property bei false pretensis. But today we're going to see whether or not that's correct. Know this is a criminal law question, right? Right. Part of the reason we know is that it seems really obvious. It just is what crime at common law. And so I love these ones. I'm like, yes, just tell me, make my job easier. Can kind of get a little bit of an idea of where we're at. Are, they tend to be property crimes like robbery, false pretenses this list. That's kind of what tells us what direction we should go in. Him. So as we're going through, you told us you were kind of looking at B as your second choice answer, right?

0:36:53 Thomas: It was really hard to come up with a second choice I agonized because I was like how am I gonna get this wrong because it just seems like d but I I just didn't think it could be no crime so I thought if I'm going to get it wrong maybe I'm just wrong about something and it's robbery so that's why I went with B as my second choice

0:37:11 Heather: Well, and you were right to eliminate this, right. In my recollection is that you eliminated it, even though you did land on it as your second choice, but you were saying this doesn't feel like a right answer because oftentimes robbery requires a threat of force, And do we see any force here? Yeah, exactly.

0:37:26 Thomas: Unless the person used the force to do a Jedi mind trick that's that would be an interesting law question like how is this robbery they used the Force it's not just a force the Force

0:37:37 Heather: The force? It's the secret undercurrent of this question was the force. Yeah. But that's exactly the reason why robbery is the wrong answer choice. It's because there was not the force, there was no force. That's exactly it. Yeah, and you're right to eliminate it. B is out. You also eliminated extortion, right? Answer choice C? Why did extortion feel like a a wrong answer choice. I think you were just saying, I can't quite remember why extortion seemed like a wrong.

0:37:47 Thomas: Must be yeah I'll put the burden on you. Why could it possibly be right? I don't know. Even how do I answer that? It's also not murder. I don't know. Why did you think not murder? Because there's no murder. I don't know.

0:38:16 Heather: No dead bodies.

0:38:18 Thomas: Unless you want to be like, $350? This is extortion.

0:38:23 Heather: Right. Because often what we feel in our hearts and

0:38:26 Thomas: It's like such a high price. It's the only thing, which I've never understood because it's like, who's making you buy it? But, yeah, I don't know.

0:38:34 Heather: Other than your bad decisions. Well, extortion at common law occurs when there's an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. Yeah.

0:38:41 Thomas: A government officer? Oh, wow.

0:38:43 Heather: So we have to, we have have to peek around to see um or not there's a government officer and unfortunately we don't have any facts to suggest that the person that she stood next to we have no facts to suggest that right the person who tucked the money doesn't say anything other than the amount of money, which means there's no facts to suggest that we've got government officer trying to extort money from her the way that we would expect extortion to be. So extortion doesn't apply here. So we can get rid of extortion. So then we're left then with A, no crime, and D, impaining property by false pretenses. And like you were saying before, you were like, this cannot be no crime. Right? To somebody, say amount of money, and then walk away with it, especially when it's not yours.

0:39:21 Thomas: Unless the fact pattern was saying, like, it was an accident or something, but it doesn't seem like that to me.

0:39:27 Heather: And you would be right. Is a crime and it is obtaining property by false pretenses.

0:39:31 Thomas: Thank God.

0:39:32 Heather: Were correct. D is the correct answer choice.

0:39:35 Thomas: Phew.

0:39:35 Heather: You can't knowingly mislead people about facts. You cannot do that. And that's exactly what happened here. When around, you got to just say, this isn't mine. I can't sell this to you. And of doing that, it was just like, no, thanks. I'll take the $3.50 and walk. And that's part of how we know.

0:39:51 Thomas: You have to loudly say, thank you for this good really tip that you gave me for telling you the price. Bye. That's the only way to get away with it.

0:40:00 Heather: Yeah. D is our answer. And you got another question right.

0:40:04 Thomas: That's crazy. No way. Way. All right. Let's see what my score is then. Up to 62.26%. 33 out of 53. Wow. Creeping up. A bunch more super easy ones like that and I'll be up to the C minus or something. Out of the D minus territory. We are still firmly D minus territory.

0:40:25 Heather: You're still in the passing range.

0:40:27 Thomas: Well, that seemed really easy, but you know, it's, to get the easy ones right too, I guess.

0:40:32 Heather: There's a range.

0:40:32 Thomas: The only thing I thought was interesting about the question was like idea that like the person didn't do anything actively to mislead. And then I of like you have to, it is a crime to not, notice you that the person obviously has been misled in a serious way and fix it, which I think is interesting it's at the very least not take the money but still it's an interesting crime where all you did was answer a question correctly and then leave I'll hold your money and then you yeah I'm just saying I would have a lot of ways to try to get away with this officer I thought I was just holding their money it was

0:40:57 Heather: I'll Take the Money, thank you. I'll Just Stand Here. Yeah. I'm just holding the bag.

0:41:11 Thomas: A really good tip look Look, a if person's going to pay $350 for bookends, do you think it's outlandish that they might tip me $350 for telling them about the price of bookends? I don't know. Seems plausible to me. In addition to me, who are our big winners? We better figure that out by going to let's start with reddit.com/r/openargs. you have a winner for us?

0:41:33 Heather: Have Megatrain says, I'm going to agree with Thomas that answer D seems correct. Even agree with him on his second choice chance answer, answer B. But for slightly different reasons, if answer D isn't correct, maybe obtaining property by false pretenses is just a phrase made up by the testers, then surely the bystander is guilty of stealing the $350 from the rightful owner of the booth where the bookends were on display. Way. But one more thought, I'll give you $10 for custom bookends at a flea market and not a penny more.

0:42:03 Thomas: That nailed it. And blue sky winner this week because I posted it too late and so we don't have anybody yet maybe combination of that and we're recording a day earlier than we normally do because we had to switch schedules so my fault but get on blue sky this this time I'll do it right promise we We obviously will have a winner on patreon.com/law. Maybe I'll do an extra shout out since I didn't do a blue sky one. And this is perfect. Going to choose two winners on one is Safander, who says, first time playing on Patreon after being on blue sky for a bit. So there you go. That fits. Fits. That's great. That is a good makeup one. It has to be D. If I recall correctly, extortion has a very specific and technical definition. I don't think this would be it. Robbery implies force, not lies. Can't imagine this is no crime because I can imagine our 16th century English forefathers would have thought this was cool and fine, so it's got to be a D. was a great one. Good job, Stefander. And then a perennial favorite. Is a rocket docket in my pocket. Well, Well, she changes her name all the time, but trust me that she's a perennial favorite. She says, the real crime in the T3B question has to be E, money laundering, because who pays $350 for bookends in this economy? Like 10 eggs.

0:43:15 Thomas: Are they solid gold, Sally? That's fantastic. Of the actual answers, D. So that was well done. I'm so glad we had two Patreon winners that made up for it. Um well that was great and I'm have to take this positive momentum see if I can answer another question maybe one that's actually at all challenging oh I shouldn't say that I don't want to challenge I don't want to I'm not issuing a challenge to you no I'd rather it'd be a hard question and be so happy that I got it right rather than an easy question and be mad that I GOT IT WRONG you know what I mean like but it's okay the test is the test we gotta I got to take it as it played as it lies.

0:43:27 Heather: Love it. Are you inviting? Are you

0:43:55 Thomas: Okay, Heather, let's have question 58.

0:43:59 Heather: Carly owns a fleet of trucks for her cake delivery business. She has been advertising a rebrand for several weeks in her store and on social media to generate excitement and more business. Carly hired Paul to repaint the fleet of tracks with a new logo. Paul agreed to paint the trucks for $5,000 and finish the work within 45 days. Days. Paul and Carly signed a contract stating these terms. After signing the agreement, Carly reviewed her calendar and realized that she had been advertising the release of the redesign in 30 days, not 45. Carly immediately calls Paul and asks if he can complete the job within the 30 -day time frame, and he agrees, but only if Carly pays an additional $2,500. Is hesitant, but agrees to pay the $7,500 in total. Paints the entire fleet of trucks with a new logo go in the 30 -day time frame. However, Carly only pays Paul the $5,000 and refuses to pay the additional $2,500. Files suit against Carly to recover the additional $1 ,500 who will prevail in this lawsuit.

0:45:01 Thomas: So it's like another mistake one almost, except slightly different.

0:45:05 Heather: Paul because Carly had a pre -existing duty to perform. Paul, because he made a new promise to Carly in exchange for the money. C. Carly, because Paul had a pre -existing duty to paint the trucks. Or D, Carly, because Paul exerted undue influence over her regarding the additional $2,500.

0:45:24 Thomas: Okay. Well, we're back. Yeah. Back to hard ones. Cause I don't, what any of this necessarily terminology will be. Right. It's a contracts question. I might as well say that because I keep forgetting to say what category. Love contracts questions. It's something I thought that I wasn't bad at until until I realized I get almost all these wrong. So, um, it's okay. We got a contract. 5,000 for 45 days. Don't know if this matters, but she immediately calls and it's like, ah, wait 30 days. Not sure if the immediacy really matters. Mean, unless there's, is there some um, safe Harbor window of modifying a contract. It's not impossible, but I don't know at common law or whatever that existed back in the 1200s. So calls and was like, Hey, actually need 30 days. Agrees, but only if she pays an additional 2 ,500. I mean, it seems not unreasonable to be like, Oh, you want this way faster. There's going to be a cost of that doesn't seem like crazy unreasonable. The cost is basically, mean, you want it in two thirds of the time, you got to pay, um, extra, you know, I guess it's a little bit disproportionate, but she agrees. Uh, she's hesitant, but agrees. I don't know if that matters. Okay. So now it seems like they've over the phone modified the and think there's anything necessarily wrong with that I mean there's no like is there a statute of frauds or whatever where something can't be not written down I don't think so, I don't think it hits any of those rules I could be wrong so they agree it seems like they agree to modify it and paul does it but carly is only going to pay the original 5 000 instead of of the $7 ,500. Paul's like, hey, what the F? Would prevail in the lawsuit? Okay. Feel like no nonsense, reasonable answer. Obviously, Paul should win because, I mean, they the contract. Seemed, you reasonable. I mean it was extra money, but it doesn't seem like crazy, extra money or anything. Seems within reason. And so it's really, it seems to be, it's going to be about terminology and it's gonna be about whether this is like the same contract or like a modification and how the wording of that works. That's what it feels like it's gong to be. So who will prevail? So I think it's Paul. So I'm probably already to A or B, but we'll see. Paul, because Carly had a pre -existing duty to perform. I don't know. I mean, I guess I pre -existing duty to perform. I don'T really understand what that answer is doing. Cause it doesn't really, it doesn'T really answer anything. I guess that the wording of that, how that would be right is like, it'S still the original. You just treat it as though the contract got written differently. So it'S like, yeah, she had a duty to perform, but why is it pre -existent? Yeah. I DON'T know .I DON'T KNOW if I like that one. I'M I'm not sure. Paul, because he made a new promise to Carly in exchange for more money. Actually, I kind of like that because maybe there's the consideration thing where it's like, but I know the modifying the contract is, I know that's a whole weird thing. Well, I'll look at C and D just in case. C, Carly, because Paul had a pre -existing duty to paint the trucks. Mean, I guess that wording makes a little more sense that way because it's It's like in he was going to paint the trucks. So wording of the pre -existing duty kind of makes more sense going that way because it's like – I don't think you can – I mean you can't promise someone additional money and then just not do it. That would be false pretenses unless you're going to offer an amazing set of bookends in addition to what you're – like that doesn't make sense. At least that pre -existing duty wording just practically speaking makes sense more sense in that direction because it's like oh it's still the old contract he just painted the trucks like he was going to but anyway d carly because paul exerted undue influence over her regarding the additional 2500 I t think that' s it either I mean you can almost say it would have been the other way like imagine if carly' s like oh actually I need it in in 30. And then Paul is like, oh, but I, man, I need this money. I guess I have to agree. Like, I don't, you know, it's just as much that way. If, if there weren't, weren't additional money, I don'T think, I don' know, this all seems reasonable. So I think I worry because I just know that these, these ones always trip me up with modifying contracts and stuff. I feel like there's usually a different language around it. I'm not seeing anything I love. I think it's got gotta be Paul I Carly were going to win I just don't think it would be for any of these reasons because like if it was see Carly because Paul had a pre -existing duty to paint the trucks then it feels like haha she got away with it what a trick and the answers are not ever that it's like the law is never like yes she successfully did this one weird trick I mean I could be wrong but it doesn't if she was gonna get out of it it feels Like there'd be some other some like better reason for it I feel like so absent and the undue influence I I don'T KNOW I think Paul it's Carly comes to Paul and is like I need to think twice as fast essentially or in two -thirds of the time that we agreed and doesn't seem like undue influenced so yeah I think I'm all right so I think I'm solidly A or B so I guess the question is is it about the pre -existing duty to perform? Is it about a new promise for more money? I think this is where I could get tripped up. I think, I actually don't think it's, maybe it is the pre -existing duty to perform because maybe that's the language that captures this is a modification of the contract, but it is that original contract. Because the wording, I'm hesitant on the wording of B because Because Paul, because he made a new promise in exchange for more money. Like I, new promise. Mean, that's the straightforward answer. Straightforward answer is B. Like that's just like people language. Because like, oh yeah, you made a, you modified. It's not really a new premise though. It's like you modified the timeline. It's still the same job otherwise. Modify the timeline in exchange from more money I just know these contract ones are tricky, especially with modifying a contract. Of think it might be A, A, Paul, because Carly had a pre -existing duty to perform. I still don't love that because, like, she just had a duty to form. Don't know why it needed to be pre -existing. The other thing is, okay. Carly pays the 5 ,000, so it's not like she didn't pay, so you could argue she that did perform, especially if it's the pre -existing duty, yeah, she did pay the 5 .000, is pre -existing there doing, I not, I do not understand what that is doing, alright, I worry that the trick is going to be that that this is A, but I can't, I just can't get behind the language of A. I don't really get how it would precisely work. I think there's a, probably a good chance it's A, but I'm going to just in case, and because I don'T have a solid reason, this has been kind of how my, my new modus operandi or whatever, like if I, I'm not going to guess a trick just because it's like, what if it's a trick? I got to have a valid reason. And I, can't articulate well enough why it would be A and why that language works. So I think I'm going to go with the plain language answer. B, to Carly in exchange for more money. As I say it, I already regret. I feel like it's A. I feels like it is not either of these. New promise, new promise. I started to say this earlier, but it sort of is like, they modify the contract, so just pretend it said 30 days and 7 ,500, and then Paul sues. What would the reasoning be? Didn't perform. You didn'T give me all the money. Oh think answer C is trying to go for this contract wasn't modified if this contract wasn't modified like this wasn't a valid way to do it over the phone then c would be correct but I just I I feel like that's not how it works this one is killing me right I'm I'm actually gonna ha I'm gonna I I'm to actually switch it up and go between b and c and pick b I just think I one I like having a diversity of possible answers there's because if I get it wrong, it could be the other side. I think, I think C is plausible in that if, if somehow this didn't actually modify the contract, Carly went by the old rules and Paul had a preexisting duty to paint the trucks. And that made sense. Just can't get behind a, with the preexisting beauty to perform a is Paul because Carly had a preexisting due to perform, but Carly did do the amount that was preexisting. I don't understand what pre -existing would be doing if not referring to like the prior contract and she did perform amount so just I'd like if that's the answer like it's really tricky um I do think you can modify contracts in this way and so I'm ultimately going with b so b paul because he made a new promise to carly in exchange for more money I worry it's wrong but I'm between b and c final answer b done not gonna talk anymore oh done with that's it done end of deliberations or no I'm just king if you'd like to play along go to reddit .com slash r slash open args or I will absolutely post this on blue sky this time go to blue sky follow open args and find that question that I definitely posted and quote skeet that put your answer there make it make it fun make it funny be correct and finally the best place of all is at patreon .com slash law and as you've seen sometimes uh it could be a couple shout outs from there and that's the best place of all to play so thanks everyone for playing uh heather and find out next week what's going on with this one all

0:54:23 Heather: I'm curious to see who wins here.

0:54:26 Thomas: Right well uh we'll see you next week heather have a good one take care

0:54:29 Heather: Yeah, you too.

0:54:34 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:54:43 Thomas: And the only thing left to do is thank our amazing patrons at patreon.com/law. And what a lucky day. I'm joined by Lydia Smith. How are you doing?

0:54:51 Lydia: Hi, so happy to be here. I love this segment.

0:54:55 Thomas: Five total different people on this one. Wow. What a show, everyone. First we're going to thank our new patrons. You to Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me, sjams, Hannah Mueller, Gregory Sheppard, mae berlin, there were two orcas interesting well thank you so much new patrons I signing on hope you enjoy the goodies and not having to hear the ads most of all that's the best part okay we also get to thank the hall of famers the all -time greats these amazing people at patreon.com/law who donate at the five dollar tier and above for at least a month, they get a special shout -out each and every show, and some of them change their names, make us laugh, make us cry. Others never change their name. That's fine. It's your thing to do with whatever

0:54:58 Lydia: Read That sounds like my nightmare. So yeah

0:55:45 Thomas: You would wish to do it with. That is what you have earned as a Hall of Famer. Well, hon, I think it is your turn to go first.

0:55:50 Lydia: It is all right we're gonna start off by thanking Bernese Mountain Dog casey khan democracy cannot survive unlegulated capitalism. James H., Department of Government and Shitification. Yeah, basically.

0:56:04 Thomas: It works with Doge, too. Wow. So far, that is the leader for name.

0:56:07 Lydia: That's good.

0:56:08 Thomas: Good good one oh

0:56:09 Lydia: Starts saying, I luh you to his toys. Oh, so sweet. The best. I'm trying to get Remy to to say I love you to me. And he won't. And so like,

0:56:12 Thomas: So cute oh yeah he hasn't learned that one yet you

0:56:19 Lydia: I just say like, do you love mom? And he says, Yeah. And then I'll say I Love you. And she doesn't say anything. And when I say say I love you. He doesn't really say it. I'm working on it. Childless cat ladies local 47 chapter Fourth Circuit attorney reluctantly changing her font. Vehicular Man's Laughter doesn't always play his podcast with others in the car. But when he does, he prefers the Lydia edit.

0:56:28 Thomas: Will love me

0:56:45 Lydia: That forever, please. Sex and gender are different things. Apprentice of Adventure. Still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system. Unfrozen caveman lawyer. Nick Fish. Thwerty. A negative phenomenon. Thwerity.

0:57:00 Thomas: The wordy as I like that's something about that the wordie that's

0:57:05 Lydia: Cavalri. Quick update. Ovechkin is 17 away from the record. Celebrini only 878. Yeah, 18. He'll make it. He will get there. (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte). Jaysank. There's a rocket docket in my pocket. Moopsie. Look, I finally changed my name. For real. Legally.

0:57:14 Thomas: Funny oh

0:57:27 Lydia: Yay. We're so happy. E.T. Thomas Freeman. And Cajunkilla.

0:57:26 Thomas: Congrats thank you to Fraud Fishy Hates Everything Chris Simpson love the extra episodes gun owning liberal So it hasn't spread any further yet, but that's it. Yeah. 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. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. I don't what that is, but it's been a hundred years.

0:58:19 Lydia: Oh, that's good. Okay.

0:58:34 Thomas: Chris and Mitchell, our champion, our number one patron. Objectively speaking, there's numbers behind it. Well done, Mitchell. Thank you so much. Thank you, patrons. We love doing that. It's so fun having a friend.

0:58:38 Lydia: Mitchell.

0:58:51 Thomas: Sorry, I just announced our divorce online, on the air. No, it's so nice to have someone else to read those names with. Much more fun. On.

0:59:00 Lydia: I have a blast.

0:59:01 Thomas: So thanks for making the time. All right. Well, that's our show. What a jam -packed episode. Hope you enjoyed it and we'll see you for Rapid Response Friday. See you then.

0:59:09 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.