T3BE66: Drowning in Camera Repair Debt

Transcript

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

0:00:47 Thomas: Hello and welcome to T3BE. Thomas takes the bar exam or OA bar prep with Heather, whatever you want to call it. And this is number 66. And that means we're getting the answer to question 65 from not last week, but two weeks ago. And also we're getting a fresh question 66, but it's a little different because Heather is still super duper duper busy with her new job. However, we are making it work and here to help us out is Lydia Smith. I'll explain in a moment how you doing.

0:01:12 Lydia: I am doing pretty well. I am happy to kind of be here, but also not be here.

0:01:19 Thomas: Time to investigate what that means. I mentioned mention last week we had to skip T3B because Heather's new job. Heather is also super busy this week. It sounds like she's really diving in that new job however I realized we can salvage it because we still have the answer that we already recorded. So you're going to hear Heather cleverly reconstructed with CGI like one of the Star Wars.

0:01:37 Lydia: Yeah, so you tell me.

0:01:39 Thomas: Yeah Lydia learned she needed glasses because she couldn't tell that the obvious CGI character was CGI. It's okay no time to talk about it now. And then Lydia is going to read us the next question and also do the shout outs and all that. So we're able to do it with archival footage and all that. But no, it works out because we had the answer. And then I realized whenever I do a new question, Heather isn't allowed to talk because she would give me hints. So we're going to do that. And then we're really hoping that Heather will be able to find the time next week. We're getting it done. It's a little bit of a Frankenstein, but it's like a really good hot Frankenstein.

0:01:50 Lydia: Yeah. Goes on mute. Yeah. Yeah, I got tagged in and that's fine with me.

0:02:12 Thomas: Yeah. It's like if who's the doctor who made Frankenstein? I can never remember. It' s like if whatever mad doctor made Frankenstein Whose name is lost to history. It's like if they made a Frankenstein, but it was like super hot and perfect looking. And they're like, oh, that doesn't look like a bunch of corpses sewn together. Looks great. That's what the goal is here. All right. Well, that's our agenda. We'll get right on over to that after this break. Please support the show. Patreon .com slash law. And you lose the ads. You support us. You get a warm, fuzzy feeling. It's the best. Thank you, patrons. We'll take our break.

0:02:31 Lydia: My god that's

0:02:39 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music] [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:02:49 Thomas: Hey, Heather, how's it going this week?

0:02:51 Heather: Great. And I am also, well, I'm doing great. Doing great. Sorry. I had to think about that.

0:02:57 Thomas: You're trying to make a esthetician waxing joke and you're like maybe not Maybe I will not make that joke but how about a right of association and I am sure happy that I have my first amendment right to associate with you on this day so let's get to it remind us what this very weird question was.

0:03:02 Heather: Yeah, maybe not. Same here. Well, our friend Emmy, who's a licensed esthetician, she owned a waxing center in our city of Bayside. And then there was a city ordinance that prevented Emmy from owning her women -only waxing center because it also prevented her from having employing only female employees. And so she sued in federal court, challenging the constitutionality of that Bayside ordinance. We're trying to figure out whether or not the city was going to win.

0:03:45 Thomas: Trying to figure out who wrote this question and what.

0:03:49 Heather: So if the city of Bayside moves to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that Emmy lacks standing, will the city win? A, no, because the ordinance prevents the employees from exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment. B, no, because the employees in EMI have rights that are harmed by the ordinance. C, yes, because only the employees can raise their First Amendment rights of association. Or D, yes because the ordinance does not prohibit the operation of waxing centers per se, but only the right of female employees to service female customers. So you correctly identified this as a constitutional law question. Hooray. Yeah. I think our big tip off was that EMI was challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. And anytime you see that, that's a big tip off.

0:04:34 Heather: And then I like to think of these types of questions kind of in falling into two major buckets. They tend to be individual rights questions, and then they tend to me branches of government questions. And I think you can also kind of see that here in the way that the answer choices fall. We have about half of the answer choices talking about the First Amendment kind of rights questions. Then we have the other half kind of talking about, I'll talk about this in a second, but a branch question. So our branch questions are ones that are the three branches of the government, right? We're trying to figure out, is this a judicial branch, a legislative branch, or the executive branch?

0:05:03 Heather: Anytime we get those questions, they can fall into one or two categories broadly also. Is this a power? Is this something they can do? Or are they limited by the power? And what this is, not surprisingly, hopefully, is that this is a judicial branche question. And we're also going to be talking about whether or not the judicial branch is limited. It's one of my favorite topics to talk about. So federal courts have the power to hear cases and controversies under Article III of the Constitution. And like Like you had said a little bit earlier, Thomas, or in the previous episode, there must be a controversy, a live controversy for a case to be heard in federal court. But they can't just hear every single case all the time. They don't have all that kind of resources. So we have some limits. And one of those limits is standing. The plaintiff must be the proper plaintiff to bring the matter before the court for adjudication. And in order for that to be the case, they have to meet three requirements. There has to be an injury, meaning that the plaintiff most personally suffer an injury. There has be causation. The defendant must have caused the plaintiff's injury. And we also have to have redressability, which is just a fancy way of saying that a favorable court decision is likely to remedy the plaintiffs' injury. So that's really what we're looking at, injury causation redressibility.

0:06:11 Thomas: Think

0:06:12 Heather: And if the plaintiff can meet those requirements, then they can get their case in the federal court. You already said right away that the answer is, will the city win? No. So we'll take a peek at those yes answers first. So you had a question about this First Amendment Rights of Association. We were talking a little bit about that. Why can't Emmy herself raise that right of association?

0:06:33 Thomas: The freedom of the right of association, I would assume, goes both ways. I mean, two people are always associating with each other, right?

0:06:40 Heather: Typically, but in this particular case, this is also known as organizational standing. And it's another limit on getting a case into federal court. What it means is it's typically, it's usually refers to like a group trying to get their case into court. I mean, it limits who can get those cases. And there has to be, there's some requirements for that to happen. But typically speaking, we're looking, we'RE thinking about a group of people trying to get their piece into court and here. Here, Emmy's not really, she's just kind of an individual. Yeah, so like imagine like a group of people together, not necessarily like, well,

0:07:06 Thomas: Wait, what? A group of people? But what does that have to do with this? Oh, like definitionally, it's always going to be harming a group of People or something?

0:07:15 Heather: The right of association, that's what we're thinking about when we're speaking about this.

0:07:23 Heather: That's how we're trying to get the case in. Yeah, it's like, is there a group of people who are trying to like get their case in? It can't just be one person that's like oh, I'm trying to associate with this group and I'm going to get this case in by myself. It's usually we're looking at a group with people together. Other. Part of the issue here too, is that Emmy, she sued to challenge the constitutionality. And you had said that some of these answer choices focus only on the employees, just like answer choice C does. That's also part of the reason that it's wrong. Yeah. So excellent work getting rid of answer choice C. It's out. So then we're looking at answer choice D. Yes, because the ordinance doesn't prohibit the operation of the waxing centers, but only the right of female employees to service their female customers. And one of the things that you had mentioned was you were like, well, doesn't the ordinance also impact Emmy as well? Yeah.

0:07:45 Thomas: Mm hmm, right. Gotcha. Okay. I would think so. I mean, specifically, it seems to target her.

0:08:11 Heather: Yeah. And you were right to say that part of the reason this answer choice is wrong is because it ignores that fact. It ignores the fact that it impacts Emmy as Well. And again, part of what it's doing here is it's focusing a lot on the employees, and it's missing the fact about Emmy. And that's also part of how we can eliminate answer choice D.

0:08:16 Thomas: Mm mm. Mm hm. All right.

0:08:29 Heather: Yeah, so C and D are out. So now we're looking at A and B. Is it because it's preventing the employees from exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment? Or is it because they have rights that are harmed by the ordinance? A focuses a lot on the employees and it's talking also about the First Amendment.

0:08:40 Thomas: Only on the employees.

0:08:45 Heather: Yeah, exactly. Right. And then B is also thinking about the harm that comes to both Emmy and the employees. So you're right to eliminate A. Yes. So you are correct. B is the correct answer. Yes, you got one right here.

0:08:57 Thomas: Oh, thank God. This seems so obvious. But the way you're doing it was very confusing to me. And I don't know if it's just my problem or what. But I was like, I don't know what's gonna happen here. No.

0:09:03 Heather: I'm sorry. No.

0:09:07 Thomas: Okay, good. Good. So it wasn't, there wasn't anything crazier going on than, than I put my finger on. Okay. Yeah. Oh, good.

0:09:12 Heather: And I'll explain very briefly. So Emmy did suffer an injury, right? Or she will. If the shop closes, she'll suffer economic harm as her shop closes. We also have causation here. Without the law, the shop stays open. There's a very direct link to the city and the law to Emmy and her harm. And then also with redressability, if the court finds that the law is unconstitutional, right, if they overturn the law, then Emmy and her waxing center stay open. And then, also, people get to keep their jobs. So, we definitely have Emmy has standing. We know that. It's pretty clear from the facts here. So she definitely has standing, and if the city moves to dismiss, then the city will not win. B is our correct answer. Great work.

0:09:58 Thomas: Well, good, finally take on this weird city that only wants women not waxing women. I don't, what a bizarre, sometimes these are modeled on real cases and I hope this isn't because I don't know what this is. All right. Well I'm glad we got there eventually and hey, hey, I got one right for the first time in what feels like forever. It's been, I can tell you the exact date, like it was yesterday. It was March 5th. That was the last time I got One Right. So I went on a three -question skid, and now I've gotten this one right. And so now I'm staying above 60%, because I remember I had gone exactly to 60, and now, I am at 60 .66. So that's at least something. Well, let's head to the internet to figure out who else got this one right. And were they as confused by the answer choices as I was? Okay. And now that's the end of our CGI budget because I've got to get Lydia in here to congratulate the winners of two weeks ago, T3BE.

0:10:59 Thomas: We're going to start with Reddit and I get to pick. Wow. It's so much, it's too much power. It's going to my head. Oh my God. I can't be in charge of all this. No, I'll pick. You react. Okay. This question was a weird one and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so because a lot of people complained about how weird this question was. I never have felt so validated in my life. So from reddit .com slash r slash open args, I'm going to go with FCK insurance. I don't know what that's supposed to be. Flick insurance, maybe?

0:11:04 Lydia: Yeah

0:11:29 Thomas: Maybe that's, I don' know, something like that. And they say B, which is the correct answer. I'm doing it quickly because I feel like I don''t know anything about this one. And it's the only answer that makes sense to me. I would spend my my time thinking about other questions, which I love. It's a good response. We got a great theme with the winners today, which is that they did not like the way this question was written either. And I feel so alive to be seen. Exactly. Yep. It means a lot of questions to answer. So we're also going... What a weird name. And on patreon .com slash law, that's where the best folks go to get their shout outs. This is a championship shout out. I'm going to shout out Katie Herman because she also hated this question. She said, I hate this question! Yeah, that's how

0:11:29 Lydia: Maybe and they're going into those you know test taking strategies that are completely valid and snaps for you flick insurance and she's a lawyer yeah

0:12:22 Thomas: You know this question's right. I think they are trying to differentiate between a law that is unconstitutional on its face versus unconstitutional as applied and the effect that distinction has on standing. This is facial challenge, so the fact that Emmy would be imminently injured by the law would give of her and named plaintiff standing to sue. I hate this question because the most glaring constitutional injury here is to the employees. Fourth Amendment, equal protection. But the employer arguably suffers a different constitutional injury. Fourteenth Amendment, freedom of association. I thought that was First Amendment. Okay, I might be wrong. And it is unclear which claim is being brought here, I .e. standing to bring one claim or both. But, the best answer is B. So, yeah, it was confusing. It's a weird question. But congrats, Katie Herman. And most Most people, I think, got it right because like me, I mean, it was confusing, but this was kind of the only answer that really made sense. So we're all great and the smartest and that question is not. And so we all stand united. All right. After this break, we're going to get Lydia's best Heather impression and she's going to read the next question.

0:13:25 Thomas: This episode is brought to you by Quince and hey, this is so fortunate. This copy tells me vacation season is nearly upon us and that's perfect timing because I'm recording this right before we are leaving for an alleged vacation with all three kids. So it actually sounds like more work, but we're hopeful it'll be fun. And as I was packing literally just now, I noted how many pieces of Quince clothing I popped into that suitcase because it's all my best stuff because it lasts longer. It looks nice and it's high quality. They got the lightweight shirts and shorts from $30. Pants for any occasion. That's important because when you're traveling, you never know like what level of, I stress out about that. Like, do I need fancy or is it going to be casual? But if you get a nice pair of pants from Quince, they'll work whether it's fancy or casual. It's so nice. You can even grab the very luggage you are packing into and durable duffel bags from Quince as well. But here's why I recommend Quince most of all, and that is the price. 50 to 80 percent less than similar brands. And how do they do that? It's by partnering directly with those top factories. Quince cuts out the cost of the middleman and passes the savings on to you and I. And they only work with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. So for your next trip, treat yourself to the luxe upgrades you deserve from Quince. Go to quince .com slash OA for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. That's Q -U -I -N -C -E dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince dot com. Slash OA.

0:13:19 Lydia: Yeah I'll do my

0:14:52 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:14:52 Thomas: All right, let's have question 66. And you know me, I'm hardcore. I haven't even looked at this yet. She sent it. I was like, great. There's a question. I'll do it when it is time. And so why don't you read us question 66?

0:15:04 Lydia: Best all righty a father was walking in Golden Gate Park with his young daughter when they passed by with his young daughter when they passed by Blue Heron Lake the daughter walked close to the edge of the lake as she wanted to feed the herons that inhabited the lake the daughter got too close fell in and began to drown because she could not swim. The father yelled for help because he did not know how to swim either. A nature photographer was standing nearby and had been photographing the beautiful scenery at the park when he heard the father's screams for help. The photographer dropped his expensive professional camera to jump in the lake and save the daughter. The camera was destroyed beyond repair. When the father met the photographer at the edge of the lake, the father thanked him profusely and promised to pay the photographer to replace the camera in a few weeks. Two weeks later, when the photographer asked for the money to purchase a new camera, the father had a change of heart and refused to pay. Can the photographer recover the cost of the camera from the father under the common law?

0:15:07 Thomas: Oh, great! It's like 10 paragraphs. Okay. Maybe she just offloaded the one that's really long for you. Okay. Restart. Sorry. Wow.

0:16:04 Thomas: Daughter's been a real shit these last couple of weeks. I'm not paying. Interesting.

0:16:14 Lydia: All right, and your potential answers. A. No, because the daughter and not the father received a material benefit from the photographer. B. No, because the father's promise to pay for the camera is not supported by consideration. C. Yes, because the photographer suffered a detriment when he dropped his camera to save the daughter. Or D. Yes. Because the photographer can recover through specific performance.

0:16:39 Thomas: Okay. So I think Heather's trying to embarrass me because she's given us a really hard one. Now, Lydia doesn't know the answer.

0:16:44 Lydia: Nope. No idea.

0:16:44 Thomas: I don't know the answer, nobody knows the answer nobody here, but this is a tricky one. So common law, so someone did a nice thing. They dropped their camera to save the daughter and then the father's like, oh, I will absolutely pay you back. And then the daughter was just a real pill for those two weeks. So the father was like, nevermind, not worth it. Can the photographer. So it's like the guy, so the guy, the father promised to, and I'm not, I'm not sure how much that matters because in contract law, it's promising after the fact is not really, I think it's going to be more about the interaction that happened rather than even the promise, but I could be wrong about that. So under common law, we have it seems to be contract law and several of the answers, specific performance is contractee suffering a detriment. I'm not sure if that's contractee. Consideration is for sure contractee material benefit. So, yeah, I think this is contract law. And it's trying to trying to see if a contract was formed. Now, I don't know if that makes sense. Is contract law the way to go here? But I mean, just karmically, which is often not a bad place to start, you would hope that the father would have to pay for the camera. But if you're trying to look at like specific contract stuff, you need the offer acceptance consideration kind of thing, I think. And so the consideration on one side, so the because the photographer kind of did two things and the father did none. So it's not really it's Not like the father agreed to have a daughter that needed saving. And because it's like the photographer lost his camera and save the daughter. So that's like two things. Things. And then in exchange, like if it's a contract, then it's formed and the father's like, okay, I will pay you for that. So it doesn't fit like a normal contract. There's also the detrimental reliance thing, but that's usually, I feel like that's normally like when the other side gives you reason to believe that you're going to get paid. So, it's not like, oh, well, I wouldn't have dropped my camera if I had known that he wouldn't pay for the camera. It's more More like that, that was spur of the moment. That just happened. And it was like a good thing he did. I actually kind of worry that like legally, I'm not really sure this makes any sense. Because if it's a contracts question, like I don't really see what the contract can be unless it's like you do something, you do something, you incur essentially a cost to do something for somebody. But it's not really like you're forming a quick implied contract. You know, it just doesn't seem to fit. So I'm, I're not sure. Okay. I'll go through the answers to see. So, can the photographer recover the cost of the camera? So, the father did, well, when the father met the photographer at the edge of the lake, the father thanked him profusely and promised to pay. So, it's almost like they're making it like the father accepted the goods delivered, which was the daughter, specifically at the age of the Lake. He's like, you got a receipt for me? Yeah, no. And then thank profuselily and promise to pay, so in that way, it is sort of like you delivered some goods to somebody, and they said, yep, definitely will pay you, and then then they didn't. But, but just, I just don't think it's like the same as that. Like I don't think contract law is how we would ensure people would be made whole with this. So that's why I'm wondering if, yeah, I don'T know. Okay. Recover the cost of the camera. Like if they were going to recover, I would think there's some other thing, but if it's common law, man, is there going to be some, okay. A, no, because the daughter, not the father received a material benefit from the photographer. I mean, obviously saving your daughter is a, is a benefit. And it's like when it comes to material benefit, I guess, is your life even a material benefit? Would you call that a material benefits or does it mean material in the sense of sizable? So I don't like this. If that's it, that sucks. I don' think I like that. I think it's fair to say if someone does something for your kid, you receive a material benifit, I would think. B, no, because the father's promise to pay for the camera is not supported by consideration. Promise to pay is not supported by a consideration. It's kind of the opposite of what I was saying, because really there's like double consideration on on the photographer's side because he both dropped the camera and saved the kid which was like two services he's providing essentially or two costs that he's incurring as much as I was thinking this could be a no answer I don't really like either of those promise to pay is not support because like you can be a part of a contract where the only thing you do is paying like that is the consideration so like a promise to the pay being support? Like if someone's like, I will sell you this car and you're like, I agree and promise to pay you, then you wouldn't be like, well, my promise was not supported by consideration. You don't need, that is the consideration. The paying is the consideration on one side. The car is the consideration on the other, I think. So I think B is, is nonsense. I don't, I don'T like, don'T like B. I DON'T like it. Unless it's saying the promise isn't supported by the cameraman's consideration, the photographer's like since the photographer already did stuff, It's like he's not doing anything in the future. Is that what it is? Like I agree to promise to pay and you agree to like continue saving my daughter. Give me my daughter in the, you know, at the edge of this lake. So maybe that's what's going for. And I guess I will hang on to be as a remote possibility if that's what it means, maybe. Because that is kind of what I thought initially, which was this promise isn't really part of a contract. It's Like you did something and I will, I will reward you essentially in a way in the form of like reimbursing. See if I find any I like better. See, yes, because the photographer suffered a detriment when he dropped his camera to save the daughter. So the thing I like about that one is it's plain language. And I don't think that's contracts. I think that the contract stuff might be a red, a red heron. The contracts might be red herons. And it might be that there's some sort of common law thingy because I could see common law dating back to when people might have incurred costs to save other people's lives or something. I could see there being something like that. I could say being like, OK, fair is fair. This person, they drove their carriage over the edge of the thing and in order to save you and they suffered damage to their to their horse. I don't know. Whatever. Something I could See that being an old common law thingy possibly makes sense. So I'm going to leave see alive on the theory that maybe it's not contracts and it's something else. D yes, because the photographer can recover through specific performance. That is nonsense. I love that. I can easily eliminate that. Because that doesn't make any sense. What would the specific performance be? You have to have a daughter not be in the, I don't even know what it would be. I've gotten burned by the hot stove of specific performance enough times to know that's nonsense. So then I think my answers are B and C. I think A is, no, I just don't think, A is nonsense. I really don't think that's anything. So I think it's either B, if it's like, if we live in a hardcore world and And it's like, well, you know, you're an idiot who dropped the camera to save my daughter. That's on you. What a dummy. Like, it sucks to suck.

0:23:34 Thomas: Like, if that's the world we live in in common law, which is not impossible, but it's also, it doesn't tend to be how these questions go. So B is my second chance answer. And I'm going to go with C. Yes, because the photographer suffered a detriment when he dropped his camera to say the daughter on the theory that it's not. And I can't wait to hear from Heather on this, hopefully next week on the fear that it is not actually contracts, actually something else, which Is a little tricky, but that's That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. So C is my final answer. B is my second chance answer. Well, what say you? Do you want to take a vote or what? What do you think?

0:24:02 Lydia: Gosh.

0:24:04 Thomas: Sounds like no. Okay.

0:24:04 Lydia: All right. Guess I have no thoughts. All right. I'm going to say, I'm gonna say, which one did you say?

0:24:15 Thomas: Either back your husband or you start a fight. Which one did I say? C. Okay. Well, there we go. We can be wrong together. We can go down with the ship.

0:24:23 Lydia: Okay. That's actually what I was thinking as well. See. Okay. Let's hold hands.

0:24:29 Thomas: All right. Well, you know how to play. It's at patreon .com slash law, most importantly, but also reddit .com slash r slash open args and blue sky check out blue sky where matt and his law partners are all going viral all the time and thanks so much lydia for reading that and now we're going to take a break and then get to shout outs we're gonna do those together as well so much fun and

0:24:52 Ad: [Ad break 4 — ad music]

0:25:02 Thomas: Now it's time to thank first the new patrons at patreon .com slash law thank you so much for signing on again wouldn't happen without you the show would be non -existent so thank you thank you to old greg Greg Gianforte, Matt Warner, Kevin, Gretchen Blitz, Anavel Alejo, sorry if that's wrong, and Kate. Thank you so much, new patrons. And now it's time for the Hall of Famers of the All -Time Greats. These folks are so amazing. They get a shout out once a week. They are the ones who pledge at that $5 level and above for at least a month. And I'll start us out here too. Thank you for I am helping film Gamers 4 and I am so tired. Gamers 5. Is that the one? Is that that the movie matt was in gamers I don't know if that's real or if that I think he was in gamers like one or something right what was the matt cameron one on like what was the drummer for pearl jam in okay so I don'T KNOW IF THIS IS SERIOUS OR NOT BUT THAT WOULD BE COOL IF IT IS AND I HOPE MATT IS MAKING A CAMEO I DON'T KNOW casey khan democracy cannot survive unregulated capitalism yeah donna treadway mother of of Herodins. Alvin Bragg should indict Eric Adams. Gmork is the wolf from Neverending Story. Is that right? I don't really, I don'T think so. Yeah. You're the fact checker. Cyanide. Oh, it is. Really?

0:25:34 Lydia: They're the best. Gamers four. Let'S see. GamERS, Matt, Cameron. Matt, is that true wait okay fact check gmork yes dang yeah yeah

0:26:28 Thomas: What a not fitting name for that wolf. I don' t think that wolf should have a name. It's just terror. Just terrifying. Well, those movies, boy, they sure don't make them like that anymore. Remember when we used to just scare the shit out of, I was going to say kids, but just us forever in the name of a kid's movie. Cyanitis, disappointed in all the capitulating to fascism. Yeah, yeah. And extra for the big law firms. Crazy. Tim Ward, Fourth Circuit attorney, reluctantly changing her font. 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, vehicular man's laughter, letting you know that E is no sleep from midnight night feeds shorthand for edit preferences oh yeah the same one that was hilarious uh and he's probably so tired he can't change his patron name that's okay it's fine valis tark a negative phenomenon cavalry irregardless of anything gretzky is only two goals from the record you gotta fight for your right to ex parte oh yeah oh uh by the way yeah grettsky is negative two uh from the recording I don't think he's scored since then unless I haven't heard of it um Yeah. Yeah. Well, it doesn't matter now. I mean, if I were him, I would have wanted to get to 900. It's like you're so close. You got to fight for your right to ex parte. J -Sync. The butthole people. Okay. What is that a reference to? Me? What was it? It was in something. Was it at Dear Old Dad's? Oh, really? Really?

0:26:32 Lydia: Gmorg gmok yeah it is very terrifying no trauma yeah yep Yep. Oh, that's funny. It took me a second to process that. Yeah. Huh. Maybe he needs to get on it. Lazy. Yeah, yeah. You. It was a joke you made. I just listened to it. What was it? It was, Yeah. No, it was, I think it was a dub T -dub. I think it was when we were talking about Doge's, all the waste that they found. And then you said the butthole people. Yeah.

0:28:08 Thomas: Oh, oh yeah. They need to be talking to the whatever people maybe. Okay. That's great. I do. I, I feel like it was funny, but I couldn't remember.

0:28:15 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. The data systems.

0:28:19 Thomas: Thank you. Thank you for the shout out. I love it. Chuck Quisling Schumer out of the Senate. That was confusing because of Chuck Schumer, but yeah, Chuck Qumisling Schemer out of the Senate and look, I finally changed my name for real legally. Yeah. My only question is, is AOC going to run for president or is ALC going to primary Schumer?

0:28:19 Lydia: Yeah Yeah,

0:28:37 Thomas: Like I, man, Man, I think maybe just go for president. Like, just do it. Screw it. Screw it!

0:28:38 Lydia: Might as well.

0:28:43 Thomas: Who cares? But I don't know. If she wanted to just easily win and be in the worthless Senate. What's the point? What's point of being in the Senate these days? Look, I finally changed my name for real legally. Thomas Freeman and E .T. Your turn, finally.

0:28:53 Lydia: All right. Thank you to Cajun Killa, Fraud Fishy Hates Everything, Chris Simpson, Listen, love the extra episodes. I love the Democrats. Fecklessness is my fetish, baby. Gun control works. See Australia. 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 LaBaw's Law Podcast. Philly Basement Bar is back open and isn't taking this shit lying down. Elect Thomas Smith President American Honky Tonk Bar Association. Balticate. Philip Kaiser. Protest March of the Penguins. Yes. For Heard Island, man. No, I think, is it just,

0:29:32 Thomas: Sorry, I was too distracted thinking someone was mad at the movie March of the Penguins. I was like, no, I guess it's a before and after type thing. Protest March of The Penguins, I mean, yeah, it's good. It's good, but I was silly. I was like, oh, man, are they mad at that movie from 20 years ago?

0:29:36 Lydia: Well, maybe they are, and I'm wrong, but I, protest march. Yeah, okay, okay. All right. Yeah. All Right. Coryn_Lann, hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report, a string of unpronounceable characters, Malaika Chandler, Milo Meadsong is fighting petty tyrants, Malcolm the Dragon, the precious variant, RhondaTheDork .com, Big Easy Blasphemy, Fred R. Grotheus, Chris Waltrip, Classic, LibTard, and Mitchell. Yeah! It doesn't say yeah in his name, I just added it.

0:30:14 Thomas: Awesome. Well, thank you so much, patrons. You're amazing, especially Hall of Famers. We love you. And that's why even though our kids are screaming somewhere, Lydia and I still said, sorry, we can't be parents right now. We have top patrons to thank. That's how it is. Yeah. Now we'll go see if they have burned down the house.

0:30:27 Lydia: Hold your horses. Yep.

0:30:32 Thomas: Thanks so much for listening. We love ya. See you next time.

0:30:52 Thomas: Daughter's been a real shit these last couple weeks.