We May Get All the Files on Renée Good's Killing... Because of a Different Case

Transcript

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

0:00:00 Clip: Thank you.

0:00:03 Matt: Intentionally told the US Attorney's Office not to tell the judge that this man was wanted for murder in the Dominican Republic. Republic. Intentionally released this statement. Activist judge appointed by Joe Biden released this wanted murderer back into American communities. Yet another example of of an activist judge trying to thwart President Trump's Trump's mandate, et cetera, et cetera. So

0:00:31 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1261. I'm Thomas. That over there is Matt Cameron. How are you doing, Matt?

0:00:36 Matt: I'm not wearing my Bull glasses. I had to send them back. So mourning the loss. But I did get a couple of comments, and I do appreciate a couple people said they look pretty good. But

0:00:44 Thomas: Now, when you put them on briefly, did you all of a sudden understand what everyone was going to do at all times and their reasoning and

0:00:51 Matt: You say it, I did become a complete jerk for like 30 seconds. So that could have been a problem.

0:00:55 Thomas: You need just the effects that are like, you know everything about everyone. And yeah yeah

0:01:00 Matt: Yeah. Just the good buffs, not the big debuffs.

0:01:02 Thomas: Also yeah not the curses that it comes with uh you also need the part where uh you apparently have just unlimited budget to like do mock trials ahead of time that was so fun people already heard a lot of that lot of movies but uh make sure you hear the whole thing it's so funny yeah I love lot awful movies like I just every time it's always like so interesting to me I hope I hope everyone else enjoys it but

0:01:18 Matt: I keep thinking about it. I can't stop thinking about bubble. It's so bad. Such a good time. Yeah. It's so much fun because I never watch bad stuff and just to think about it and then I wonder what Thomas and Lydia are going to think about it. And then we just get on and talk about it, and it's a good time.

0:01:34 Thomas: So much fun but you're clear of the cursed glasses that were probably a horcrux of some kind for that for that asshole so that's good

0:01:41 Matt: I think that the negative 20 charisma has worn off, yeah?

0:01:45 Thomas: Well what's going on in our world today what are we going to be talking about

0:01:49 Matt: Speaking of negative charisma, bad riz, we've got the Mifepristone up in front of the Supreme Court again. I just wanted to explain that a little bit because it's had a lot of twists and turns. This is not the same as the Memphis -Preston decision famously from a couple of years ago. Is a whole other thing, and it's obviously, and this isn't going much further. But it is kind of just checking in on the pro -life legal movements fight and which they're willing to, I guess, die on would be the way to put that. We got that. We got some bad ICE behavior. I always like to cover bad ICE just to kind of let you know around the country what they've been up to.

0:02:21 Matt: Still not great, still lying to judges, still refusing to participate in things and turn up their records. So I just wanted to cover a few of those things so people are aware what ICE is getting up to. Then the Alex Murdaugh trial was in the news this week for good reason. And is probably worth a deep dive later, but I just wanted to touch on it.

0:02:20 Thomas: They still suck yeah good reason. Okay. Yeah.

0:02:36 Matt: Well, I mean, as a criminal defense attorney, I think this is a very good reason to overturn a case. So I wanted to explain a little bit of what happened.

0:02:42 Thomas: Kidding.

0:02:43 Matt: We've got, you know what? I promised we were only going to do one or two dick notes a year, but this might be our second one. We got another dick note.

0:02:48 Thomas: A dick note.

0:02:48 Matt: So we got a dick note, me

0:02:49 Thomas: Good. I could use a good dick note and

0:02:52 Matt: Too, too. Just a little fun here.

0:02:53 Thomas: Sure our audience could too.

0:02:54 Matt: Yeah, I got to end on something fun. So what we got.

0:02:56 Thomas: All right. Well, we'll take our first break, uh, which you can avoid the ads at patreon.com/. So I get that lot of movies as well. All kinds of goodies. And, uh. After this break, we'll get to all the things. Right, Matt where should we start hmm

0:03:13 Matt: Us begin with Mifepristone. I think, probably remembers that there was a challenge to this a couple of years ago. Famously, Judge Alex Kosmarek briefly, a little while, at least stopped distribution of Mifepristone in certain ways. I'm going to probably mangle the word Mifepristone several times during this conversation. There was a Supreme Court case that went up in 2023, all the way back in 1018, we talked about in 2024 when it came down. That was dismissed for lack of standing. FDA violates for Hippocratic medicine, because you might remember they just gathered together a motley crew of doctors, idiots, that they could find people with doctor next to their name. That was lack ofstanding, because it turns out just a group of random doctors can't stop a drug because they think that maybe it might hurt somebody sometime. Which is basically the argument. As a reminder to everybody, itself, I don't know if you remember this growing up, but I remember it always being called the French abortion pill. That was always what they called it in the news. Same thing.

0:04:03 Thomas: I don't think I knew what that would have been you know like I think that sounds sort of familiar but I wouldn't have been yeah I didn't I I wasn't worldly to know enough to know what that was oh

0:04:14 Matt: I just remember RU486. I just remember that name because what it was called. People understand because there's a lot of misinformation out there. This pill was invented in the 80s and has been safely used in France since 1988. It has been totally approved there, and was eventually approved in 2000 Food Drug Administration. And is subject to what's called a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. There's certain kinds of drugs and controlled substances where you have to... There's extra rules about how you administer them. And there was a time when you had to only administer it in a hospital, that it has been proven safe in same way that pretty much any other drug that we regularly prescribed is safe. There's always side effects. There's all these possible things. It is certainly a lot safer than waiting until the last possible minute to administer healthcare to women, which is the option in a lot of places right now, where, as we know, DOMS took effect and where safe and legal abortion procedures are illegal. So the that Mifepristone is back here is it's not necessarily fighting over the administration of the drug itself. What they're really concerned about, what the movement is concerned about, is the fact that people can get it by mail in states where they couldn't get it otherwise. And the reason they can do that is because there was in 2021 during the pandemic a in the risk evaluation mitigation strategy, which allowed it to be prescribed by mail. And that went pretty well. So Biden's FDA renewed that in 2023. And And that's been the law since then, that

0:05:36 Thomas: Think that's the same reason why we could get like adhd stuff over you know online for a bit I thought they so they didn't get rid of that I thought they were getting rid ofthat

0:05:46 Matt: Jr.'s FDA has been talking about a new REMS. That's what they call it, the REMS, the district court in this case has given them six months to come up with one and there the was previous system fda conditioner as of this week was marty mccurry and he was getting a lot criticism because it seemed like that he was dragging his feet, which he very well might have been because it's not unreasonable to continue to administer it this way. Been a hard call for getting this REMS repealed, getting stricter regulations, taking it back to the idea that you have to have it administered in a healthcare setting. Now we have Kyle Diamantes, who was promising to rush this forward. But in the meantime, what we've got is this challenge that went up to the Fifth Circuit from the district court. And the standing for this... Now, remember, of course, I think very obviously the Supreme Court found that random doctors don't have standing to challenge any given drug. You have to show there's actually harm to somebody, and not just speculative patients that you might have heard about. Now the state is saying that it has standing, Louisiana, and invoking the story of Rosalie Markizich, which is an unfortunate story. Was planning to have a baby and her abusive boyfriend coerced her into taking Mifepristone. He got them by mail. I don't know how. Not, I don'T know the whole story, but that is horrible. But that conceivably in an abusive relationship, people could convince you or coerce you to take a lot of things.

0:07:00 Matt: Be careful how I talk about this because it's a terrible situation that never should have happened. But I'm not sure that you can blame the fact that she could get it by mail on that.

0:07:07 Thomas: Yeah there's plenty of things you could get over the counter or that would also like be harmful if someone's making you take them or, you know, guns.

0:07:11 Matt: To a baby if you really wanted to damage him. Yeah, still

0:07:19 Thomas: We also could just buy guns that we're trying to they're trying to tug your heartstrings while you see abusive boyfriends are going to make you take. Oh, yeah, they could just get guns, easily obtainable guns in our stupid country. Are we worried about that?

0:07:20 Matt: Very legal. Yeah. Louisiana, are you sure? I don't know. I feel like Louisiana's got the lockdown on guns.

0:07:40 Thomas: It's like, well, no, that's fine, though. You can do that. That's that's that.

0:07:42 Matt: Of course. Yeah.

0:07:43 Thomas: That's all right. Oh

0:07:44 Matt: Complaint here in this case, which was filed back in October, give away the game in paragraph one, sentence one, item one. It just says, the fight for life is far from over. So that's quite a shot across the bow there. This is where they're fighting it is here. They're saying that in this case that Mifepristone, first of all, they're resurrecting the argument that had been made before by the doctors that it was rushed through. The FDA has previously denied that. It does seem like there was a somewhat accelerated process in it.

0:08:09 Thomas: They try to find some dumb thing from like a million this drug's been it's been years right like decades it's Been Fine and they're like well way back in the day there's was a little rushed that

0:08:12 Matt: Since 2000. right. They're invoking the idea that some of the women who ingest the drugs do not want an abortion, and that is very unfortunate, but I can't imagine that as very many people.

0:08:26 Thomas: Not any reason that's Not Any Reason To Stop Something Are You Kidding Me Like Some Number Of People Who Don't Want Anything Might Take You Know What

0:08:34 Matt: I it's unfortunate because they're talking about how drinks can be spiked. In this case, she was forced to take it basically under duress, but I mean certainly you could surreptitiously slip it into somebody's drink. I have no idea if you can do that without somebody noticing.

0:08:47 Thomas: You could also poison someone like

0:08:49 Matt: With household items, yeah. Had to grasp to find standing here. And what they're saying is that in a couple of these cases, it costs the state money, I guess, because they had to go to the emergency room from complications. But of course, the standard model right now, I remind everybody in Louisiana and Idaho and other states, is that people have to go the emergency and the doctor has to wait until it's basically critical before they can terminate a pregnancy if somebody's having a miscarriage or complication of pregnancy. So would think, I'm not a doctor, but I would there'd be more complications from from the model of not providing termination pregnancy in dangerous pregnancies, then there would be, right, it's no, horrible. And mifeprestone, relatively speaking, the side effects don't seem to be from what I can tell, again, not a doctor, but I can't see that they are more serious than any other drug side effects. And it seems pretty safe. I been certainly, like I said, in Europe, something that has been accepted for almost my entire life. At least kind kind of see the argument that this is something that should be administered in a healthcare setting because it has serious consequences, obviously, and it is something you should be taking voluntarily and intentionally, know what you're taking. I think it's pretty safe to say that anybody who's going to try to get this in the mail, especially if they live in a state where they can't go and get healthcare in person, I think they want it. I think that's something that they want to do for themselves. So know, you're probably going to win when you say, this is an extraordinarily serious case, but it's also an extraordinarily easy case. Thanks. Thanks, I'm sure it is. So they're saying they're standing, first of all, is because it's causing what they call sovereign harm, which is the idea that they have tried to ban all forms of abortion in Louisiana. And this allows people to get around that by getting something by mail, which, again, there are organizations helping people get access because it is that important. And it is a safe and legal and relatively inexpensive drug.

0:09:23 Thomas: We saw it. It's horrifying. Feels like the real argument they want to make. And then the other stuff is just kind of like, well, here's some other reasons to, to give it to us. But that's the real thing they want us to do. The real thing I want to say is people shouldn't be able to get abortions in our state, no matter what. And this is letting them.

0:10:31 Matt: Basically, right, leading with that. And then, of course, there's the quasi -sovereign harms of just what they're alleging about women and children being harmed, and the economic harm, which I think, again, compared to the economic arm of not providing healthcare to dangerous pregnancies, it just can't compare. But Louisiana is on the hook for any Medicaid -related expenses arising from the emergency room and other hospital visits. It talks about the amount of Medicaid they spend and about the cost of emergency rooms. Again, that's relatively minor, I would think. Wanted to let people know what is actually in here. The important part is this goes up to the Fifth Circuit and they agreed. Agreed in the sense that they provided an emergency stay and stayed the 2023 order that allows Mifepristone to be distributed by mail. Reason I want to talk about this story is because it's one of those classic things where it goes up at the Supreme Court and something happens that people don't expect, which is that Samuel Alito, well -known foe of abortion, author of The Dobbs Decision, signs signs off on a say, which reverses the stay, and I know we always get caught up in these things,

0:11:35 Matt: But essentially putting things back so that you can continue to get Mifepristone, which the current state of it as we're talking right now. Explained this more than once, because the headlines can be so confusing and people can get kind of caught up in this stuff. These are extremely normal temporary stays while they're just trying to do an emergency argument about all this stuff, so it's a pretty standard thing that they would keep the original status quo, which is keeping the rule in place until they have arguments. And I wouldn't be surprised, obviously, if I would expect that Elida is going to go the other way ultimately, ultimately, but in his capacity as in reviewing this emergency thing, he extended the stay this week, and it'll be extended through the arguments. So that's what's going on right now. But ultimately, we will see what happens with this. But so far as I understand it from this lawsuit, it is not about the legality itself or the safety of Mifepristone. It is about this ability to get it by mail in places where it would otherwise be restricted.

0:12:24 Thomas: Feels like the damages wouldn't specifically be tied to it being gotten by mail, would it?

0:12:31 Matt: Making the point in this case, this tragic case we're talking about, that he basically, he drove over and they were actually on their way to a hospital and he made her take it like I think in the hospital parking lot or something. But you could say that obviously, if you have a situation where people like bad actors can get a hold of this and abuse it, and it's not being administered by a nurse or a doctor in a hospital, then it opens things up. And there are plenty of drugs like that that can only be administered in hospitals, like something like Dilaudid and a super powerful opiate. See that to that point, but I just feel like the relative relative harms of the two things just still can't, to the extent you're going to weigh these relative harms, I guess.

0:13:04 Thomas: OK, sorry. Just what happened recently? Like what was the recent part of that?

0:13:09 Matt: The recent thing was Alito staying the stay, essentially returning to the status quo. So you can still get it by mail as of the time that we're recording this. And I think it will be available through the time of the Supreme Court's going to have an emergency hearing. This is on the shadow docket. We don't like the shadow docket and we usually expect the worst thing to happen. For the moment, this is pretty typical Supreme Court behavior of, and it often looks very strange because it's not what you'd expect them to do, but basically returning the status quo because the Fifth Circuit had kind of done something surprising here. That's where it's at. And we'll be watching this one because I think it is a very important issue for healthcare and for rights in this country.

0:13:40 Matt: I'm not a doctor. I'd be interested on that perspective on this, but I have not seen doctors standing up to say that it is an extremist national emergency to allow Mifepristone to be mailed.

0:13:49 Thomas: Yeah. Probably cause it's not.

0:13:51 Matt: Really not. Yeah.

0:13:53 Thomas: So the, so not even the merits is going to be up though. Right. This is still, it's going to be a shadow docket thing for, okay, I'm doing that whole thing.

0:13:57 Matt: Shadow docket all the way. Yeah, good times on the shadow docket once again.

0:13:59 Thomas: You, I, it sort of feels like if they were going to do, go the wrong way in the shadow docket, Alito wouldn't have even bothered doing this thing. Cause isn't that kind of what happened with, with, the abortion bounty hunter thing, you know, he let that, they let that go. Didn't they? Yeah.

0:14:13 Matt: Yeah but I think it's just the votes here. Also the Comstack Act I meant to mention. They are raising a Comstac Act argument. I just want to mention that again because that is an incredibly broad statute that keeps obscene matter. Usually that's what we're thinking about is obscene manner being distributed by mail but it also includes anything designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion in common carriage. And that's something that was overridden, obviously, by this regulation, but they're challenging that. And the CompStack has been kind of on the table for a little while as something that could be a real problem for this, so we'll see.

0:14:42 Thomas: Right, well, let's take a break before moving on to other stories.

0:14:49 Thomas: Matt, how's ice doing? They still they still they do any better.

0:14:53 Matt: Oh, no, they've seen the many errors of their ways, and they are now distributing distributing flowers and candy. You hadn't heard? No. just like to check in once in a while on the various ICE misconduct stories around the country. And there's one good story we'll start with. It's about Rene Good. About the, obviously, the killing of Rene Good in January. And of course, this seems like so long ago now, but it was only a few months ago that Jonathan Ross tragically shot Rene good for absolutely no reason. We've covered that at length, and I'm sure people are all too familiar with the case by now. By court order, because you might remember at the time that federal government essentially just completely blocked any access to anything about Jonathan Ross. They would not cooperate. FBI was not allowed to cooperate with Minnesota authorities. We are talking about a police shooting on Minnesota soil in Minneapolis, and obviously local authorities should have the right to investigate it. We do have an order. It took a little while, but it's actually not necessarily related to the good case, which is kind of strange how this developed. Was actually in response to a motion in another case in which Ross attempted to assault somebody, a

0:15:53 Thomas: What?

0:15:54 Matt: Similar kind of thing where he broke a window. And this is the one where the man was accused of dragging Ross with his car.

0:16:00 Thomas: The first one before it. That was kind of the justification.

0:16:01 Matt: That's That's right. Yep. Because he's bringing a motion now, obviously, for a motion for new trial, potentially trying to reduce the sentence because now more has come out about Ross's conduct. And obviously, we saw what happened with Rene Good. Interesting that this case is actually what produced this order. So within three weeks now, the federal government is going to have to provide everything we wanted pretty much about this. Basically, all of Ross's files.

0:16:26 Thomas: Because it's evidence for a different case.

0:16:28 Matt: Yeah, different case where he was a bad actor. Yeah. And that's how it goes. It's always going to be something. Statements that he made, anything they have on camera basically, any January 7th, the day of the shooting through now basically regarding the investigation into good shooting, subpoena power here, medical examinations, everything basically, audio, video, everything to do with Ross. Us. And a long distance, I think, toward justice for any good. I hope so. The more, the better, obviously. But kind of a fluke that this happened the way it did, but it's a great one.

0:16:59 Thomas: I have so many questions. I know you probably weren't wanting to talk a ton about this, but like, how not already get that? But for Rene, good. Like, how is that not something that could have happened sooner?

0:17:09 Matt: The federal government isn't investigating it. And I think that there's been ongoing litigation from Minnesota on that. And I think that they have been blocking it every turn, as I understand it.

0:17:18 Thomas: They'll be able to just block this?

0:17:21 Matt: Going to be out in public record here, from what I can tell. And and I think they're going to be able to be accessed here. I can tell from Hennepin County or Minneapolis is that that litigation over those records is still ongoing over the last few months with because I'm sure he filed the motion for new trial probably right after the shooting. And those can be quicker to schedule than trying to charge somebody with a murder. So eventually.

0:17:34 Thomas: Was just further along in the legal process or something already?

0:17:42 Thomas: Yeah. Right. That's bizarre. So you're get to see this kind of thing?

0:17:50 Matt: I think it makes it that much easier for us to get it. But this is the right direction, certainly. Yeah. We will see.

0:17:57 Thomas: Huh. All right. Well, that's interesting.

0:18:00 Matt: And not so good news in of records and trying to find out what ICE is doing. We've talked a lot about 287G programs, which are the agreements that ICE makes to work with local and state police departments. And we've talked about how those have exploded in recent times, how there's just so many more of them there were, and how they also brought back the kind of direct line model. Because before the Obama administration, Biden administration had scaled 287 back to the point that it was essentially helping ICE do paperwork, that you could have an officer in who would just help with paperwork. But now they're actually allowing them to basically deputize many immigration officers to help do immigration enforcement, which is a real problem. Got 1 ,712 contracts of last month across 40 states and territories. That's a lot of contracts. We've already talked about how if you think there might be one in your jurisdiction, this is a really good point of contact. This is a good point to leverage. Would be a really good idea to see if you can do something about that, put some pressure on it, because that is one thing you can actually do as a citizen right now is keep your local

0:18:53 Matt: Taxpayer dollars from helping out ICE. The media wants to know what is going on with these 287Gs because these programs have exploded. We don't really know very much about what's going on with these training programs, how much training is necessary, what is actually happening with the police, who they're arresting, and who they are detaining, and where, and how it's all going. This is a story from American Oversight, which has obviously been doing good work in this direction. And it found an interesting kind of loophole they're exploiting, which get records from ICE, you have to file a FOIA with ICE, right, obviously, in the Freedom of Information Act. They're doing is that they're trying to get information from the police departments about these agreements. There's a clause in most of these agreements, I think all of them now, that says that they can't do that and they don't have to respond to any of these requests. The partners are referring everybody to ICE and ICE is saying we don't have to release them.

0:18:54 Thomas: On the local level. Yeah. Oh, okay. So they're like, even if you're trying to get the information through your local police department, which you think they would have the obligation to do that, they're saying, oh no, you got to talk to ICE. And then ICE is able to say like, screw off.

0:19:54 Matt: That's right. And so the agreements, all of them now have this language that says information obtained or developed as a result of this agreement, including any documents created by the locality in connection with this agreement, shall not be disclosed. So they have to agree to that to sign on to the 287G. So saying you have to go talk to ICE. And then ICE is saying that regulatory provision on 8 CFR 236 .6 keeps them from releasing anything related to any detainees at all, which they could redact. They're certainly possible to do that. ACLU obviously is fighting this because this would require litigation basically every time you want to get any records from ICE about anything to do with the 287 , which is now a lot of their enforcement. Is an interesting one to watch. It's been going a little while now, but it's just the realization that oversight had here that it's basically created a situation where it is impossible to get information from ICE, about any arrests involving the 288 , or any kind of stats about detention, or what's going on with these departments, which we need to know, without an expensive and really very difficult FOIA lawsuit. Those are real specialty suits.

0:20:53 Thomas: It'd probably take too long. And yeah.

0:20:55 Matt: Forever. And very expensive and requires a lot of lawyers because it's a very specialty thing. In the ICE oversight story. Is, as I've said before, kind of the front line of American fascism. If you're integrating, like fully integrating state and local departments in with ICE, like that is really dangerous, and we need to know as much as possible. One more story that in New England, we've got, you might have heard about, but is pretty typical ICE behavior, but it's the kind of thing people should know is happening. There's a man in the Rhode Island District Court in a habeas claim. Now remember, I've told you that you pretty much have to file a habea corpus claim petition in any given immigration case at this point under ICE and DHS and EOIR's interpretation as the immigration court of the law about people that came without permission. And so in the course of these habeas proceedings, now know that ICE intentionally told the US Attorney's Office not to tell the judge. Think about this, it's very strange, but it'll make sense in a minute. Not to tell the judge that this man was wanted for murder in the Dominican Republic.

0:21:55 Thomas: Wow because judge would want to keep him here you'd think or would want him to keep an eye on him

0:21:59 Matt: I mean, it is a pretty good reason to deny habeas if you actually have a notice out for a warrant for murder. Very least, obviously, that would be a reason. Now, Now, as his immigration attorney, I would say this is completely unproven. We don't know what this is or who filed it or what's going on. We need to see more, obviously. But it is a criminal arrest warrant for homicide, and that's pretty serious. And emailing the U .S. Attorney's Office to tell them not to disclose the existence of this warrant, on August 30th, 2026, they released this statement. Brian Rafael Gomez is a criminally illegal alien from the Dominican Republic with an international warrant for genocide. An activist judge appointed by Joe Biden released this wanted murderer back into American communities. Yet another example of an activist judge trying to thwart President Trump's mandate, et cetera, et cetera. So not great. Ostensibly that they told the U .S. Attorney's Office not to disclose this is they said that at the time they couldn't confirm or deny it. But I you can't have it both ways, right? Turns out it could be confirmed potentially. can'T release a statement blaming an activist Judge for information that you told DOJ not to tell her. That's very

0:22:57 Matt: Bad. Par for the course, honestly, for this agency. So not really that much of a surprise.

0:22:57 Thomas: So seeing that they did that like intentionally to cause problems for the judge or is it just was like they did a bad thing and then tried to take advantage of a double by blaming the judge.

0:23:12 Matt: My read is the latter. I think they took advantage of a situation that they had created. And also submitted an uncertified copy once they did submit it to the court, which isn't great because this has to be certified. DHS has still not explained itself, but the U .S. Attorney's Office actually issued an apology, which is pretty unusual these days, for having done this, for knowingly not informing the court of this. The Department of Justice, I would expect, and DHS, I have less of a standard for, but I would respect the Department of Justice at some point to apologize under previous administrations. But right now, anything goes with the IJ, as we know. So this is actually the first time I'm aware of that they've apologized for anything that has happened like And again, we've seen them ignoring court orders and disregarding courts in all kinds of other ways, but I do appreciate at least that they put in a formal apology on this one.

0:23:55 Thomas: Right, Matt. Well, Ice still sucks, um, but why don't you tell us about this Murdaugh trial thing I'm sure a lot of people have seen in the news. Very interesting. It's a Netflix documentary, of course. Um, I think I've watched all that, but also it's been a while, and all the true crime crap kind of blends together for me yeah

0:24:08 Matt: Yeah. I Absolutely is an unusual story. I mean, even if you're not a fan of true crime, you don't need re -dramatizations of this stuff, this is really dramatic. I think we made that point when we talked to John Jay Lennon a few months ago from prison, prison author, talking about how especially underprivileged people end up as true crime stories, right? And that's all anybody ever knows them as. But the most more interesting true crime stars to me are things like The Staircase, where you have a very wealthy white man or this kind of thing, right, which, by the way, I think we've talked about The Stairscase, but I absolutely think he did it. There's no question he pushed his wife down the stairs and killed her.

0:24:45 Thomas: I agree that that bird did it I totally arrest that bird

0:24:50 Matt: Owl or whatever. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, the idea that anybody watched that and thought there was any possibility he didn't do it, but I still don't really understand how that's possible. But I guess I just have too much time around the system. I don't know. I thought that the whole point of the staircase was to show us how a white guy with a lot of money can get off. But here we are. So the Murdaugh's are a very similar kind of thing, except they have way more money and way more power. And they're like a generational family of lawyers. Don't have to rehash the entire Netflix show, but basically three generations of Murdaughs were DAs between 1920 20 and 2006. That is an empire. You've got your own little legacy thing going there.

0:25:23 Thomas: And they're all weird oh

0:25:27 Matt: They're all weird and they're doing different kinds of crimes for sure. Kind of starts when their youngest son, Paul, was drunk driving a boat, which is a very privileged thing to do, and sadly killed a friend in 2019 and they couldn't get rid of the case. Know, Things kind of went from there. But the real problem as they're trying to deal with whatever they can do to cover this up, turns out that Alex Murdaugh was embezzling millions of dollars from his clients as an attorney, $10 million total, even including his dead housekeeper's family. I mean, this is pretty dark stuff.

0:25:40 Thomas: Yeah that's right that's

0:26:02 Matt: There was a motion to compel financial records in Paul's case that brought all the stuff about Alex. And the family's kind of falling apart. And then three before the Hearing to consider this motion, his wife Maggie and their son Paul is found dead in the house and seems pretty clear that he had done that. Gets really weird after that. I mean, as if it wasn't getting weird enough.

0:26:00 Thomas: Right oh wow who

0:26:25 Matt: Murdaugh, who's in here, who is really the center of this, hired somebody to kill him, as you do in this situation, I guess.

0:26:24 Thomas: Yeah

0:26:33 Matt: Yeah. And unfortunately, this is a story about a family that lost everything with a son named Buster, so it's just very hard for me not to see that one -armed Buster.

0:26:32 Thomas: Yeah oh my god who's named buster I missed that one yeah

0:26:47 Matt: But his remaining son, Buster was going to get $10 million in insurance. That's don't know. I guess in terms of if I was going hire somebody to kill me, I would want my relatives to get more than $10 ,000 ,000. I feel like that has to be worth more than that, but can

0:26:59 Thomas: I feel like there'd be bargaining like how much am I worth you know like ah can I get more than that no never mind I'm

0:27:05 Matt: Of a last -minute tweak to that insurance policy or something? I don't know.

0:27:07 Thomas: Not killing myself for any less than 10 million I don't get into my deathbed for any lesson yeah

0:27:15 Matt: So again, this is the kind of story that's just made for a TV movie, made for a Netflix movie, and made for Netflix series.

0:27:18 Thomas: That's got a lot well so the whole thing was wasn't didn't you have a horrible like drug addiction and that that was why he was stealing all the money and he was like addicted to like you know opioids or something right yeah

0:27:31 Matt: Yeah. This very much the picture of privilege. This is somebody who really thought in his little area of the world that he could do whatever he wanted in This is how it all went down. He was indicted not just for killing his wife and son, which it seems like he probably did, but there are also 79 state charges for fraud and forgery, 22 federal charges for bank and wire fraud. Fraud. He'd already received 27 years by state for the financial crimes and 40 years from the federal government for the federal crimes. And that's an important piece of this that people need to remember when they see this headline is he's not going anywhere. This is one of those cases where something was overturned, but you're still going to be spending the rest of your life in prison very likely. Will say, again, as a defense -minded person, as a fair -mindedperson who wants to make sure that everybody gets a fair trial, even someone one like this. Was serving two life sentences without the possibility of parole for these murders of his wife and son. And it comes out that Becky Hill, the clerk in this case, the court clerk, was trying to write a book, among other things. And she told people that she was trying to write book so that she could buy a lake house and

0:28:30 Matt: That a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell books. So not great, Becky.

0:28:30 Thomas: Come on what are you what's happening is something in the water over there like what everybody's like the crimiest possible person just criming yeah

0:28:38 Matt: Just Right. Exactly. Just don't even say that. It's not necessary. Mean, this is the kind of thing because she was running around telling people that she wanted to be sure he was found guilty. And then she started making statements to the jurors, like just talking to the jury, just hanging out, I guess, the way the court clerks do. But of course, it is not appropriate in any case for a court clerk to be and making comments about the case to a juror. That's never something you should ever be doing.

0:29:03 Matt: It's borderline jury nobbling, I got to say. Vocabulary word of the month from The Juror, of course, another fun, wonderful movie's choice. It is forever associated now for me, the British concept of jury noabbling, jury tampering.

0:29:06 Thomas: Yeah that's nobbling yeah well what's so dumb about this is I don't even think you needed to nobble this one no nobbling necessary this

0:29:21 Matt: Didn't. He have nobbled himself, a self -nobbling case.

0:29:25 Thomas: Jury this jury nobbles itself and

0:29:30 Matt: You're so right, though. I mean, it just seems like, and again, I don't know the intricacy of the evidence, but I mean it's like extremely incriminating from everything I've seen that he almost certainly killed his wife and son and then took out a hit to try to kill himself.

0:29:39 Thomas: If your whole thing is writing a book like I don't even know that it's a bit worse for your book if he did get off yeah it was like that probably still be yeah the hell what an idiot

0:29:45 Matt: People love not guilties. That could be selling for years. Right. I was THERE when the jury acquitted this extremely guilty man.

0:29:52 Thomas: A world's most unnecessary nobblin nobbler hmm

0:29:58 Matt: And the nobbling arguably wasn't even the worst part because this is a court clerk who is being entrusted with records, with very important court records, including awful photos of murder scenes, which she let the press take a look at because why not? And also perjured herself because she initially denied that she ever did that. Was a guy that she wanted to write the foreword of her book, so she just lets him sit in with court officials and just kind kind of act like part of the trial.

0:30:12 Thomas: Come on wow

0:30:22 Matt: Yeah. Was a leading statement to the jury is things like, don't be fooled, watch him closely, watch his body language. And then she also said, this shouldn't take us long, which is never a good thing to say to a jury. That sounds a lot like the court saying that it's not going to take long, that you should come to a quick conclusion. A lot of post -conviction work on this one, very good work from the attorneys. But again, this is no matter what you think of Alex Murdaugh and anything else that he did. Obviously, we can't have clerks interfering with the fair distribution of justice. Is pretty bad. It was a unanimous overturning from the Supreme Court of South Carolina. He's going to get a new trial on the murders, but it doesn't look like he's getting out on the financial crimes anytime soon, probably ever,

0:30:20 Thomas: Okay yeah yeah

0:31:02 Matt: Given his age. So it's one of those things where obviously justice has to be done for his wife and son so they can figure out what actually happened, but it's not going to necessarily result in a dangerous person being released back to the street either.

0:31:13 Thomas: What's happening to this absolutely this this uh this this crazy knobbler that's

0:31:19 Matt: She's already pled guilty to perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct. And she got a year of probation for all of that. Honestly, that's it. Yeah. I mean, here.

0:31:25 Thomas: It potentially you could have like I mean I don't think in this case but like potentially the thing she did might have like condemned an innocent person and it's like well slap on the wrist yeah

0:31:35 Matt: Yeah, I a really serious public trust as a court clerk. You have a lot of power in that job. And it's an important thing that you're managing these records, that you know, keeping the court in order, keeping the judge on track. And there's a lot of things you're doing and a lot important sensitive stuff. And I just think that we do need to set an example when people abuse, that kind of power. Think about Annie Dukin, who I might have mentioned once or twice here, but very famous case in Massachusetts because it was actually pretty much in the history of the world, as far as we know, the most number of cases were affected by what she did in a drug lab that in the drug lab called her superwoman because she was doing like five times as many drug analyses as everybody else. It turns out she was what they jokingly called dry labbing, which means not actually doing the test.

0:31:40 Thomas: Holy

0:32:18 Matt: Resulted in, I think, something like 25,000 cases being overturned or something. Think she got two years for that. And part of the two years was also, yeah, yeah. But she got time, right? That's what you'd expect. And that was also because she, in a number of cases, lied about her credentials on the stand when she was testifying in these cases. Not only lied about how she tested the substance.

0:32:22 Thomas: Shit two years that they're talking about like crime is a is a societal construct like the amount of harm that did relative to the time versus I don't know the the possession of like a joint or whatever you know like it's like come on that's that's so many people's lives potentially ruined by this person and she got two years years

0:32:56 Matt: Asking for one, and the prosecutor was asking five to seven. I should say she was sentenced to three to five. I was a little off there. It was three to five, but she got out pretty quickly, relatively speaking. Did not serve the full five.

0:33:06 Thomas: I how many lives could she have potentially ruined oh

0:33:12 Matt: Too. The work of prosecuting. And again, I'm not a big believer in drug cases to begin with, but it is a lot of state effort and taxpayer money that was put into prosecuting people that is completely destroyed. End, she was looking at bags of marijuana and calling the cook. I mean, she was just so lazy. She was just putting this stuff through. The beginning she was saying, well, it's a white powder, so I think I know what it is basically, and that's not how you do science. Also in terms of weight, that's very important for how much the substance, how much of it there is. That could be the difference between felony and misdemeanor.

0:33:41 Thomas: It goes to show me you always talk about administrative violence I don't know, does this qualify but like we just bad as a society as humans at recognizing properly the harm that caused like she didn'T shoot anyone you know she didnT do anything violent but she caused so much more harm than any like who knows you know like how many lives that could have even been oh

0:33:45 Matt: It does. It Yeah. Mean she was literally emailing with prosecutors in her hometown to make sure that she got the cases that were closest so she could help to prosecute and be pardoned. That's not how it works. She works in a drug lab for the state. She's not a prosecutor, she's not on the prosecution team. But she was trying to make sure that she assigned cases and got samples that were in her area so she can feel good about basically basically being a vigilante in the drug lab. I mean, this is really bad.

0:34:26 Matt: Just not how any of it's supposed to work. It's a good parallel in terms of just of power, abuse of trust. And we know the same thing happens to cops all the time, they're even convicted, which is so rare that they get very light sentences on things that aren't even that serious often.

0:34:28 Thomas: Hold

0:34:43 Matt: It is. That's actually a Netflix series. That's a really good Netflix series. It's called How to Fix a Drug Scandal. I will recommend it. Obviously, it's a case I've been following from the beginning, but that was worth watching. It was worth talking about.

0:34:44 Thomas: Well that's crazy Okay, I actually want to watch that yeah yeah

0:34:55 Matt: I actually had a number of Dukin cases myself because everybody did, like anybody who does any immigration or criminal law. I mean, there was thousands and thousands of them. And they kept the database. And basically, as long as you can prove that it was in the database, you didn't have to prove that she messed it up. You just have to show that she touched it. And that was enough because was also notable, I just mentioned since I'm talking about it, that she was pretty much the only time that we know of that. Because this has happened to drug labs a lot, but usually it's because they're addicts. We have people that just take the samples and lie about what's in there or just fudge the numbers because because they're taking them. And the first time that we know of that somebody did that because they just wanted to do a good job, which I've always thought is an interesting story.

0:35:29 Thomas: A good job like as in just just like people away.

0:35:31 Matt: They to feel like they were part of the team, that they were doing justice. And so they just decided to cut corners. A state employee. She's not getting massive bonuses for doing this. She did get promoted faster, but even to sell a book like

0:35:41 Thomas: She's just ruining people's lives for the love of the game. It's wow. Yeah, like, wow, that's crazy. Talk more about that, it's really interesting, but I think we've got to take our last break and get to our dick note. I was promised a dick note. I was told there would be dick notes. And you don't promise me a dick note and not deliver. So we'll take our last break and then we'll get to it.

0:35:57 Matt: You got it.

0:36:08 Thomas: Right, Matt, let us have it. Whip it out.

0:36:12 Matt: All right. You might have seen the headlines on this one. This is a particularly fun victory for justice. This, in my mind, is the next sandwich trial. Of course, we've extensively covered Sean Dunn and the sandwich trial I'm going to send you a clip here so that you can get a look and like you to describe what you're seeing uh

0:36:26 Thomas: Oh you're doing this one. Oh, okay. This is the one I sent. Yeah. Yeah. I sent this in the Slack.

0:36:28 Matt: You sent oh yeah okay well there you go I guess it subconsciously got into my head because I've seen it several places awesome that's

0:36:36 Thomas: Holy crap. Uh, okay. So this is, uh, this is Matt giving me my own dick bat note back to me. Cause I actually was the one who sent him this. Okay. Matt's had a hell of a week, everybody. Um, this is not funny. Uh, be if it weren't so evil, but for the uninitiated, we've got body cam footage of a man going up to someone in a penis outfit that's like a... It's so... God, it's so ridiculous. It's like an inflated kind of, like an inflated penis costume and a sign that says, No Dick Tater. It was at the No Kings protest back

0:36:45 Matt: And here we are I have I've been a hard week no can't miss it yeah that's it yeah

0:37:16 Thomas: In... When was that? That a couple years ago a year ago uh uh okay here's the here's the footage um

0:37:21 Clip: Heart attack I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you if my kids had to come by and see this How would you explain it to him? I am recording. I'm recording right here I am telling you right now if my kids had to come by and see this I would like to hear how you would explain to my children

0:37:39 Thomas: He says to the penis like he's pointing at the penis and like the way that her voice is coming out of the penis is just so perfect what

0:37:48 Clip: You're supposed to be?

0:37:51 Matt: What you're supposed to be

0:37:52 Clip: No, I want you you let me get another unit over here I want you to tell me I

0:37:57 Matt: Getting back up

0:37:52 Thomas: A pun is yeah I love that I love that so much because he didn't instantly because the fucking cop asshole didn't constantly get like Like, oh, you're right, my liege. I'll do whatever the fuck you want. She got like a slight follow -up. So he's like, I need another unit. I need to explain what a pun is. I need backup. We got to beat the shit out of this old lady because she's, it's like it's so pathetic. It's so, they

0:38:15 Matt: Back up immediately the idea of like do you explain this to your children I don't know how do they are not familiar with the concept of a penis like yeah

0:38:28 Thomas: Could explain it to you, dummy.

0:38:30 Matt: If you don't know what a penis is by now as a child something's gone wrong I don't know, um it's a part of the body so of half the world's bodies I

0:38:38 Thomas: And more ridiculous. Ridiculous.

0:38:40 Clip: Want you to why my children

0:38:47 Thomas: She says, the penis says, am I being detained? If not, I'm going to go. And the penis turns around and starts walking. And, and, and the legs are roughly where the balls are. So it starts walking ball to ball, you know, like it is the

0:39:07 Matt: Knew I can count on you for a play-by-play on this one yeah it's

0:39:09 Thomas: Physical comedy of this is unbeatable. And it's, this is like, you would, if you were trying to make a show or a play or something with this physical comedy, it would take talent and planning and rehearsal. And this lady nails it. Like there's not even unintentionally.

0:39:13 Matt: So good right sure and blocking yeah sure totally hits her marks

0:39:27 Clip: You're supposed to be I know I want you let get another you it over here. I want I want you to tell me, I want you to. Tell me why.

0:39:40 Thomas: Am I being detained? She turns around. See you later.

0:39:46 Thomas: And then he goes and starts pulling at her. Pulls her down this is where it turns from hilarious to fuck you stupid cop because he just she turns around by the way we is rare but it's yet another matt a good use of am I being detained because occasionally usually that's some idiot sovereign citizen but uh occasionally we get some like the per that's the best use of m .i being detained hey are you putting my penis Are you putting this in a cock cage?

0:39:50 Clip: I'm telling you right now.

0:40:18 Thomas: I'm going to need the giant cock cage that we can to be able to arrest this dick. And then and then she's like, OK, well, then I'm doing this. I'm walking over here. She walks away and then he just yanks her down from the back.

0:40:18 Matt: Did not consent to this yeah yeah

0:40:33 Thomas: Like, why is that necessary? There's no I just just wish there were some sort of consequences for these people. You know, there just never is. And that people still trust the police and think the police are fundamentally good when this is the there is no reason. Like even if even if you thought okay well she shouldn't be in a penis costume even if like you could fully agree with that there's absolutely this is just a child this is my children have this level of self-control like she turns around and just yanks her down because he can't he can't handle that she hasn't respected his authority it's just it's unbelievable yeah

0:41:10 Matt: Some very sensitive tissue you got to be careful when you're yanking a penis like that yeah

0:41:12 Thomas: We know who the real dick is it's not the nice old lady, 61-year-old lady. This was yeah, I sent this to you and was actually thinking this is almost a penis trial or this is almost a sandwich trial. She went to trial for this.

0:41:26 Matt: Is she did that's the good news yeah yeah of all she was charged with failure to provide her name to the police because she identifies herself as Aunt Tifa, which is very cute, I think.

0:41:31 Thomas: It is. OK, go ahead. I that, too, because she was already having been roughed up later in the video. After already going through quite a bit of police violence she gives her name as aunt tifa and like yeah you know what good for you she doesn't back down that penis is standing erect ready to take and I I Just, I know we're not going to go through the whole thing there is a an hour of them trying to get the penis costume lady into their police vehicle it is the funniest thing and the whole time she's like do you want because it gets serious enough because he's an asshole that she's like okay you she's Like just let me take off the outfit you know and he can't let her do that because he has to police his way all the time it's always got to be cop cop cop he can't Let her do That and so then he tries to get her in the car she won't fit because she's a girthy sizable uh this this penis and then he's any the whole time it is it's peak comedy. I mean, you got to watch this

0:41:56 Matt: This was quite a trial. Right. Not going soft on this one. Oh, yeah.

0:42:41 Thomas: Whole thing. Then he's, he's like not willing to admit it until he's like, all right, we got it. We have another vehicle. So then the solution is get a bigger vehicle. It's not, you know, let the kind old lady take off the penis costume. It's we need to get a big vehicle in here. And then they try to do that. That doesn't work. And then finally, like, all right, we'll take it off. But he has to try to take it off. He can't do it. He Can't figure it out. It goes on and on. It is just so absurd.

0:43:07 Thomas: The children that we give guns and allow to beat the shit out of us.

0:43:12 Matt: And just the sight of like, I mean, you know, again, whatever. I just, I don't think there's anything actually obscene about dressing as a seven-foot penis. Maybe that I'm just a little too libertarian or libertine, one of those things, probably both of those things. Is obviously a first-time case. This is in Fairhope, Alabama, I meant to mention before. So she's charged with refusal to identify herself. And suddenly there's a reason. You've got to have a reason once you've abused somebody in that way. Disturbing the peace, obviously, and providing a false name and other related misdemeanors. This goes to a jury, a Prosecutor Marcus Medel actually said out loud, in this, that no one has a constitutional right to dress up as an erect penis, and stand on the side of the road.

0:43:29 Thomas: You mean she's charged with something that happened after he slammed her down? Isn't that weird? Okay.

0:43:53 Matt: Disagree. I just disagree. I think you can dress as whatever part of the body you want and stand at the side of the road. It's America. I'm sorry. I'M NOT SORRY. Do it. That's not legal advice, but

0:44:03 Thomas: It's called, there is a part of the Constitution that's about, you know, speech or something, I think. It's being, it being usually. But it's also like, again, It's so funny. There's no part of this is because she dressed as a penis all of it is because a man who's the embodiment of a penis is a 14-year-old with a temper who can't control himself because you again you could have I would have disagreed strongly but you could have just been like Ma'am, uh take off the costume you you can't this is obscene that again wouldn't agree with it at all but that then we wouldn't even be hearing about this I don't think I mean maybe you might hear about it if she sued like her freedom of speech was being violated maybe she could and should do that but like this is only an issue because of this asshole and police being pieces of shit yep

0:44:26 Matt: That's the right analysis. Yeah. Yep. And at the point at which they've assaulted somebody, they've got to have a reason they did it. So, yeah. Like you said, it happens afterward. But yeah, perfect. I mean, because, you know, this is obviously fun and she won and everything, but she had to be put through a trial and she had to be arrested and charged. And I mean it's not fun. It's not what you want. And I hope that Fairhope learned something from this that maybe you should just let people dress as giant penises at the side of the road, but remains to be seen. There was another kind of funny moment I wanted to mention in the trial because we all enjoy a surprise witness and there was a classic surprise witness moment in this one.

0:44:56 Thomas: What a great system yeah bring in the inflatable vagina I don

0:45:25 Matt: Would prosecutor points across the courtroom and says, I called the gentleman in the red shirt. Now, this is extremely unorthodox because he was pointing to Renee Gamble's husband, Larry Fletcher. Know what kind of dinky court this is, but I'm sorry. You don't just call a surprise witness who's just been sitting through the trial, in the middle of the trial to testify, and defense attorney objected. And for whatever reason, obviously there's no notice, he's not in the list, isn't somebody they expected to testify. The guy just shrugs and takes a stand. And Yeah, I guess the judge allowed it. It. Guy's trying to do a gotcha, the prosecutor, and asks him,

0:45:58 Thomas: What possible guy I don't I'm so sorry I can't wait for you to say what possible gotcha this is gonna be here we go yeah

0:46:10 Matt: Penis costume woman's husband? You think he's going to help you out in this case, right? They're to support her. To pay her bail, obviously. And apparently, while he was paying the bail, he mentioned that he had bail money on him day before the protest. And obviously, the city attorney is trying to suggest that she was planning to get arrested or wanted to get arrested. But of course, if you're a protester, these days, it's not a bad idea to have bail money ready to go under any circumstances.

0:46:12 Thomas: Right

0:46:36 Matt: I'm sorry to say it. I wish it weren't that way. But that is legal advice you can take. Ready to have somebody bail you out if necessary. And it's usually not that much, depending on jurisdiction. But a couple hundred bucks in cash would be helpful.

0:46:46 Thomas: So the gotcha would be you intended to get arrested which means it's okay that we arrested you for something well

0:46:52 Matt: Yeah, that you're just a troublemaker. And you must have been trying to disturb the peace, because we're charging you with disturbing the peace. So you go.

0:46:58 Thomas: That's weak.

0:46:59 Matt: Is very weak, but it was also very funny because as will often happen when you don't know the answer to a question that you're asking, it turns out that Larry himself is just as much of a character as his wife. Larry's Fletcher said, I always make sure we got bail money on us. I have bail money now. Whenever this many cops are on, they always have bail Money on me so good and there was 16 cops in the courtroom I

0:47:19 Thomas: Why don't we have footage or, you know, like, do we have full transcript for this? Because holy shit, you're giving away gold here, Matt.

0:47:22 Matt: Know I want this one I want to get it court clerks in fairhope alabama let's let's talk I want that transcript this is not guilty so it's not going to be appealed so there wouldn't be one prepared otherwise just like the sandwich trial but I will well I was going to say Thomas will pay for it it's

0:47:36 Thomas: You tell me a number. Yeah, Matt, tell me a number. It doesn't, we're like not breaking even on this, but that's okay. It's for the love of the game, really. Oh man, that was fun. Well, a bummer. It is rough to watch the like warning videos, not fun all the way through because it is police violence. But it's not, you know, she's not like seriously hurt or anything, but it's you know. It's shitty. It's it would be traumatic to go through that.

0:47:44 Matt: So much fun yeah short trial too. Sure. Sure. Yeah.

0:48:04 Thomas: I hope she's suing the pants off of these dicks. She's suing the pants of these dicks.

0:48:10 Matt: I mean, I know she didn't have any balls on her, but she's got balls on her. I'm really the whole thing. It's a model for protest and she absolutely was doing nothing wrong. So congratulations, Brittany Gamble. So think that's our show for today.

0:48:22 Thomas: Right. That was a lot of fun. Thanks so much, Matt, for the breakdowns. Thanks for listening, everybody. And we'll see you on Monday.

0:48:35 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon.com/law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments@gmail.com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.

0:49:06 Thomas: Know who the The real dick is it's that bird yeah not killing myself for any less than 10 million I

0:49:17 Matt: Very sensitive tissue you got to be careful when you're yanking a penis like that yeah

0:49:20 Thomas: In the inflatable vagina I