0:00

Am. I

0:05

right guy. For.

0:18

Your. Information the supreme court does roundly

0:21

rejected or I or restrict is

0:23

not a first immunisation. I.

0:26

Printed out a sign especially for him,

0:28

using has favored font guerre on the

0:30

who has a favorite, but. I

0:33

bet on the internet that it's not against the law

0:35

for me to go to the bathroom while the fasten

0:37

seat belt scientists on so. What

0:40

does that against? the law though? Hello

0:45

and welcome to Opening Arguments This this

0:48

episode One Thousand and Thirty One. I'm

0:50

Thomas and. Is. Sitting in

0:52

a and just a pile of announcements

0:54

and news and things to say. Miko.

0:57

Those man I'm sorry, can you

0:59

hear? can you hear me Just

1:01

in time for allergies is great

1:03

In other, you don't have an

1:06

allergy to announcements because we've got

1:08

a lot today. So much I'm

1:10

really excited for. Very. Excited!

1:12

And we've also got some really good

1:14

oh a stuff to talk about. We've

1:16

got the news about the marijuana. Reschedule.

1:19

It down down scheduling. I don't know.

1:21

Not sure what the correct term is.

1:23

Max can tell us about that. perhaps?

1:26

A. Take counter to one you've heard and

1:28

then we've got updates on Judge Can

1:30

and ruining the entire idea of the

1:32

rule of law. Or. Maybe reportedly

1:35

and some other various trial updates.

1:37

So. That's the away we're talking about today. That's

1:39

the good stuff we have later. but okay.

1:41

millions of announcements met. So sorry. Okay, if

1:43

you can. If you can dig a hole

1:45

out of the announcements, pile your and. What?

1:48

Do I hear me? One of em? First off,

1:51

There. Has been obviously a big

1:53

challenge in wanting to do. The.

1:56

trial stuff the trial transcripts

1:58

trial coverage and Also,

2:00

it wasn't just that, that's easy enough, but

2:02

also once we started doing this transcript

2:04

reading it got really fun, it got really

2:07

cool, people were talking about how that wasn't

2:09

something they were getting anywhere else. I'm having

2:11

a blast with it, but of course it's taking up

2:13

a lot of time. It's the kind

2:15

of thing where covering it is going to

2:17

eat up basically all plus more of the

2:20

slotted time and episodes we'd have for OA.

2:23

And that wasn't really going to work. That's not something

2:25

that makes sense to me. At

2:27

first I thought we'll get by by putting

2:29

some of it just on Patreon or something,

2:31

but it was pretty clear that it

2:33

was just way more than would make sense

2:35

for that. We'd have to basically grind all

2:38

of opening arguments to a halt

2:40

except this trial coverage. That's

2:42

just not something I wanted to do. We've

2:45

been trying to figure out what in the world

2:47

to do about this particular question. In

2:49

the meanwhile, also I've been trying to keep

2:51

up with the transcripts that we

2:53

already had recorded and stuff and

2:56

trying to edit that because it is a challenge,

2:58

it takes longer. And then I had an

3:00

idea, Matt. Okay, so this is kind of fun.

3:02

In the spirit of also being able

3:05

to talk about whatever I want now

3:07

because of not being under any NDA

3:09

or anything, I can tell you that

3:11

there was a time pretty quickly after

3:13

Andrew stole everything that I thought, well,

3:15

I guess I have to launch my

3:17

own law show for one reason

3:19

or another. And, as you

3:21

can imagine, I prepared to launch my own

3:23

law show and got a bunch of stuff

3:26

done. I didn't get 100% of the way

3:28

there because for reasons I'm sure I'll

3:30

get into sometime, it became clear that I couldn't do

3:32

that. But it was also the kind of thing

3:34

I wanted to have ready because at any minute, who knows, something

3:36

might have changed and I would have had to

3:38

launch my own show or could have launched my own show and

3:40

would want to do that because I wanted to get back on

3:42

the air covering law stuff as soon as I could. Anyway,

3:45

so I have a show ready. I

3:49

have a podcast ready and basically everyone in

3:51

the audience is probably thinking, there's no way,

3:54

you can't do another podcast. It's impossible. Hold on,

3:56

hear me out. Hear me out, everyone. Yes,

4:00

I can you can't tell me what to do. No Secondly,

4:03

it's actually going to work out and I'll tell you why for

4:05

one I finally now that I'm

4:07

done with the legal battle I get to

4:09

cut back on other shows I was just

4:11

doing I was maxing out like revving all

4:13

engines as hard as possible because

4:16

of just how much

4:18

money I was throwing into a fire

4:20

pit called lawyers and There's

4:23

more on that at patreon.com/law in that

4:25

little 20 minutes I recorded if anyone wants

4:27

to hear more about that, but I

4:29

get to pull back from that a little bit now

4:31

So I can pull back from Si Oh

4:34

not have to do so many of those I can do

4:36

fewer in a month I can do fewer of a few

4:38

other things and Here's what

4:40

I've decided this actually

4:42

is an amazing opportunity because Putting

4:45

this trial stuff on this other

4:48

kind of enclosure the show ready to go

4:50

this blank slate that I've had ready Allows

4:53

us to return opening arguments to

4:55

just classic opening arguments Like

4:58

not just in terms of what we

5:00

covered but like the schedule and I

5:02

was like, oh that's such that's gonna be so

5:04

nice It's gonna be such a nice return to

5:06

like what was so fun about the show We're

5:08

gonna go back to so instead of three episodes a

5:10

week of OA We can

5:12

go back to the old Format the

5:15

two episodes a week the t3b is

5:17

the end of Friday's episode for the

5:19

question and the answer is in the

5:21

end of the Monday slash Tuesday episode

5:23

depending on when I released that back in

5:25

the day and We can

5:28

just do it how it used to

5:30

be so between cutting that midweek episode

5:32

from away and cutting some

5:34

Si Oh, I'm buying myself some time

5:36

to be able to do

5:38

this trial coverage and stick it on

5:40

this other thing and also we've cloned

5:43

Matt, that's right. Hello Matt to speak

5:45

up in the microphone, please I

5:49

It's still me and I'm still gonna talk like

5:51

this. I'm sorry Thomas. We couldn't fix it Okay,

5:53

if you both talk at the same time, maybe

5:55

that'll be louder. I don't try to figure No.

5:58

We have been reaching out and we're trying. The find

6:00

experts to help. With. Matt just

6:02

so I'm not swamping you have too much you could I

6:04

I think you also in your day job. Still,

6:07

Save Lives but I prefer start going

6:09

to quarterly see if it's it's and

6:11

so that's one part of the equation

6:13

we're still working on. But.

6:16

I think this is such a great idea. And.

6:18

Not only that, I have been able

6:20

to hire someone to help do the

6:22

transcript parts. They don't have to hear

6:25

just me and Lydia doing weird voices

6:27

necessarily. I've hired someone to take over

6:29

that. We've. Had more submissions I

6:31

could possibly ever do anything with For the

6:33

auditions that's great. That's how you want it.

6:35

So if you don't hear from someone, don't

6:37

worry. Seriously, with there's so many. Trump.

6:39

Would have to go on trial for

6:41

like every time he ever committed to

6:43

use all those additions. but maybe maybe

6:45

some day. And so I have hired

6:47

someone to handle that part of it, so

6:49

that takes a significant chunk of the

6:51

work off my plate. and that allows

6:53

Matt Nyan/perhaps other experts as we can

6:55

find them to. Just. Be able

6:58

to do that analysis part and not have

7:00

to worry about the massive time sink that

7:02

is. Producing. Body

7:04

of those transcripts. so I am

7:06

super duper excited. For. This. And

7:09

I guess that's a good time as

7:11

any to introduce that if you'd like

7:13

to go here. The new show the

7:15

into with it's trial transcript episodes. The.

7:17

Name of the podcast is Gavel Gavel. And

7:20

pretty happy with it. And also the art is

7:22

where my favorite things in the world. Cosa I

7:24

think I've long had. One. Of the

7:26

best podcast are people that I've used for

7:28

basically all the shows. Suitably. Where

7:30

There's Woke is one of my favorite pieces a

7:32

podcast or ever done and love it so much

7:34

and ask him. Anyway, Gobble.

7:36

Gobble the name of the show and

7:39

for now the Trump Trial coverage our

7:41

our mind everybody and as a lot

7:43

to parse through but the Trump Trial

7:45

transcripts t three but that Trump coverage

7:47

is going to be on patron.com/gavel Pot.

7:50

That's where you can find it for

7:52

now. It's gonna be on the Patriots

7:54

until I can get the wheels up and

7:56

run everything going on the pod and eventually

7:58

it'll be on a mean. The available

8:00

for everybody. But. In already

8:03

that add to do a lot of things I've

8:05

liked repurpose the old stuff we did. I got

8:07

any I want to do do it right for

8:09

the main feed but I figured I didn't want

8:11

to bogged down with all that. I'm

8:13

just simply posting. The.

8:15

Trial coverage that we're already doing over

8:17

on Preacher and are countless gavel pod.

8:20

thou. Be wary, can find it. And. Our

8:22

major bunch of times and it gives us a freeze up. So

8:24

much time that we don't have to be. Dying.

8:26

Making sure we're going to like finish that part

8:28

of the thing and times and get to other

8:30

away it is released. And I have to say

8:32

it's also very exciting. Opportunities have a new way

8:34

to cover trials. I don't think anybody's anything quite

8:36

like this before. The are kind of building the

8:39

plane as a flat here that turn it's It's

8:41

been exciting. Between what we didn't Georgia and I

8:43

think we've been doing it is transcripts. I just

8:45

I've never heard any kind of coverage like it.

8:47

Yeah well I've also I think I'm gonna commit

8:49

some crimes and then see it from the inside,

8:51

to licenses to get a diagnosis, for research and

8:53

our grub, the store or something, you know, And

8:55

never before that will help and the identity of

8:58

that show. Another reason why the idea makes so

9:00

much sense to me is. Gobble. Gobble

9:02

Already like was evocative. Have a court room

9:04

as like oh the focus of that show

9:06

can be covering actual court room stuff like

9:08

trials and I know instantly you had a

9:11

few that are like of We could do

9:13

this when we could do this when it's

9:15

not. Only and because it's Trump's all the last

9:17

forever. Yeah, it's going to last few more weeks. Problems

9:19

that. Cycle. And we got the next

9:21

Trump trial. well with that but maybe thought about that

9:23

my blog about the I exactly a while but you

9:26

know you're in Massachusetts with got Karen read on trial

9:28

and we have. I've had so many people asking me

9:30

if we could talk about that cover that we can

9:32

while and see what happens in Ibisevic can't cover are

9:34

now with everything going on Trump but it's him to.

9:36

Very interesting set of issues that have never been a

9:39

call like it around here. This is one example of

9:41

the kind of sort of headline grabbing trial. The maybe

9:43

want to see what's actually going on in a courtroom,

9:45

see how the layers of doing what the strategies are

9:47

witnesses are you know but things are not just gonna

9:50

see our tedium. And. and lots of

9:52

other trials will not have to do

9:54

readings on the transcript is fun of

9:56

that is it's also yes yes it's

9:58

not ideal and will just be able

10:00

to have actual audio. And I know,

10:02

never do I learn more than when

10:04

we've grabbed actual audio of actual lawyers

10:06

and judges and everybody doing

10:09

their job and listening and hearing like, oh

10:11

wait, what the heck was that? And it's

10:13

something that Matt probably just takes for granted

10:15

is his job. I love that. And it

10:18

makes so much sense to me that we

10:20

can have gavel gavel be like the home

10:22

for that kind of in the courtroom stuff,

10:24

like just feel what it's like in these

10:27

trials and learn about. We

10:29

can even go back through history a little bit if we want.

10:31

There's plenty of places we can go eventually where we

10:33

can see like, hey, what happened here? I'm

10:36

not doing the OJ trial. I'm never that stupid. It's 400 years

10:38

long. Things have been done years. Yeah, it's

10:40

been done. We know that one. But like stuff people

10:42

might not be so familiar with. How

10:44

did this happen? How did this person? You know, it'll

10:46

be interesting if we ever do something historical that people

10:48

don't know it'd be fun to like, you

10:50

won't necessarily know how it ends kind of

10:52

thing like there's so much potential for this

10:54

kind of coverage. And that's why

10:56

it makes so much sense to me. But

10:59

I will say just in case, just in case

11:01

anyone listening, hey, if you're somebody

11:03

who has like actual trial experience, like

11:05

you direct trial courtroom,

11:07

probably criminal law experience, like

11:10

Matt does, feel free to send an

11:12

email open argument with gmail.com because we are looking

11:14

for ways because I is going to put so

11:16

much on Matt. Like it

11:18

would be nice to to be able to have someone

11:20

to help share that burden could use the help and

11:23

the company would appreciate it. Yeah. Yeah.

11:26

And you can go open [email protected] if

11:28

that is you and actually you and

11:30

not just like, hey, you should go

11:32

talk to this celebrity lawyer or something.

11:34

You know, like that doesn't help. I'm

11:36

so excited for this. So if you want

11:38

to get that next Trump trial transcript episode,

11:41

that is April 30th in court.

11:44

That was that day. That was the one we were

11:46

on. And we are already in production for May 2nd

11:48

and May 3rd. And it's

11:50

going to be so much nicer to not have to do the

11:53

tedious transcript part. I can't

11:55

wait for you and I just be able to jump on and

11:57

dig in. And so those will be coming quickly. That will be

11:59

at patreon.com. Slash gavel pod

12:01

there's some good stuff coming so all that

12:03

leaves us is just you know the

12:05

couple odds and ends of that means This

12:08

is the Friday episode of the

12:10

old format Which means we'll do the t3b

12:12

question on Fridays And then people can try

12:14

to answer and then we'll get the answer

12:17

next week on the Monday Tuesday episode And

12:19

we'll also bring back the Hall of Fame. You know

12:21

and new patron shadows. Those are a lot of fun

12:23

I'll make sure they don't get really long or anything,

12:26

but that'll be a way to do that one

12:28

more thing I posted

12:31

on patreon.com/law a

12:33

question thread for anyone who wanted

12:35

to ask any questions about The

12:37

Smith v Torres the whole thing the whole

12:39

shebang It's asked me anything

12:41

about that doesn't mean I'm necessarily gonna answer anything

12:44

about that but you can see in the

12:46

post you can ask whatever you want and Holy

12:49

shit, it's got like 250 comments

12:52

on it like it's people have a

12:54

lot They want to know about this and so if there's

12:57

stuff you wanted to know if there's Questions

12:59

about that whole thing you've been dying to ask

13:02

you can hop on to patreon.com/law if you're already

13:04

a patron You know make sure you check it

13:06

out And please please please make sure

13:08

you hit the heart button on questions You want

13:10

to hear the answer to because there's obviously no

13:12

way I'm gonna get to all of them And

13:14

it'll be good to know what to prioritize what

13:16

people want to know next so that

13:19

was a lot of announcements, Matt I'm sorry, but there's a

13:21

lot going on. I've been waiting to show you this and

13:23

so With all that said let's

13:26

take a brief break, and then we'll get to

13:28

actual opening arguments Matt

13:33

I see thematically you got high as

13:35

all get out You're just high out

13:37

of your mind right now to celebrate

13:39

and literally see the bloodshot eyes through

13:41

the computer big news for potheads Hey

13:43

potheads Yeah,

13:45

I Got

13:49

five on it, but that's about it

13:51

I Wouldn't

13:53

put much more than five bucks on this. Okay,

13:55

all right, so yes, good news. Bad news. Mostly

13:57

bad news. I Got to be honest with you.

13:59

mostly. News mostly. Dad is Thomas A.

14:01

Oh wow. The rescheduling of marijuana to schedule

14:04

three is not progress and it's going to

14:06

hold us up quite a lot. Oh in

14:08

Moet I thought it was good news. How

14:10

did I am? I don't miss, read it

14:12

or is this your telling people stuff they

14:15

wouldn't hurt? I'm This isn't just me, Most

14:17

advocates for cannabis and and other substances and

14:19

Freddie against federal drug Law would agree. I

14:21

think that needs to be unscheduled. That is

14:23

B D scheduled completely and I will say

14:26

up front. I think I've I've said this

14:28

before but I am a strong advocate. For

14:30

the legalization, Full legalization of cannabis. At this

14:32

point, twenty four states have full legalization and

14:34

most of the rest of them have some

14:36

hit, some kind of medical program. I do

14:38

think it's abysmal, like it's absolutely in an

14:40

embarrassment to the world that it is a

14:42

schedule one subsets. and just to be very

14:44

clear about what that means, everybody understands and

14:46

we have a lot of was his may

14:48

not be as interesting project scheduling as I

14:50

am. It means that you have a substance

14:52

that has no known medical value and that

14:55

has a higher risk of abuse or addiction.

14:57

Does that sound like cannabis to you know?

14:59

I mean we briefly. Touched on at some

15:01

point luck I'm not gonna pretend that people

15:03

don't get addicted to to cannabis and somewhere

15:05

like I know the people I am not

15:07

act from as at all and I'm sure

15:09

I'll get argument know our why I said

15:12

the like I do know people who smoke

15:14

way too much pot and seemingly can't stop.

15:16

But. The Pacific, they're out there. Fear

15:18

I don't really. It's nowhere near as dangerous

15:20

as how virtually everything else Assist Assist: You

15:23

know what's not a schedule one substance tobacco

15:25

which has no American lawyer and a high

15:27

risk of abuse or decks and and will

15:29

actually kill you and said nobody's actually of

15:31

of I'd have to wait. If.

15:34

it's and then it's absurd there there's so many

15:36

things and can see in really have shut up

15:38

and our shores right now and then it might

15:40

have more medical value than nicotine bed and of

15:42

course there are front alcohol as well i've never

15:44

been much of a drinker i don't really understand

15:46

the appeal frankly better in up with all got

15:48

of isis they don't call alcoholic any sort of

15:50

schedule whatever know yeah okay that's dumb it's control

15:52

it's regulated but it's not have settled simpsons you

15:54

know this is all pretty arbitrary and of course

15:56

if anything about the history of marijuana particular it's

15:58

directly racist it is grounded in racism, there's

16:01

no question about that. Why is that not

16:03

surprising? Yeah, I mean, it's the point at

16:05

which you had all those jazz musicians and

16:07

Mexicans, you know, that were smoking, being a

16:10

bad influence on our white citizens. And there's

16:12

that famous quote from John Ehrlichman, the Nixon

16:14

age, you ever hear that one? About why

16:16

they actually did it? No, well, maybe I

16:18

have, but apologies, this is not a topic

16:21

I'm particularly well versed in. So pretend I'm

16:23

not a pot smoker and I don't have

16:25

like any depth in this issue at all.

16:29

We're here to explain things. We've got a lot to

16:31

explain on this one. And I do want to do

16:33

a full episode on scheduling and we'll get into a

16:36

lot more of the details of legally how this works.

16:38

But John Ehrlichman, the Nixon aid said, we

16:40

knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either

16:42

against the war or black, but by getting the

16:44

public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks

16:47

with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could

16:49

disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid

16:51

their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them

16:53

night after night on the evening news. Did we

16:55

know we were lying about the drugs? Of course

16:57

we did. Sorry, did he

17:00

administer the truth serum? Is this like during an

17:02

interrogation or something? Yeah, no, he just went out

17:04

and said it out loud because by that point,

17:06

you know, he was well out of the administration,

17:08

didn't matter. But that is just no question. I

17:10

mean, the American Medical Association, just to give you

17:12

the idea here, because I think there's been a

17:14

lot of obfuscation and I think a lot of

17:16

intentional, I'm gonna say covering up,

17:19

but maybe rewriting of history on a lot of this.

17:21

Cannabis was basically legal until 1937 and

17:23

the American Medical Association opposed criminalizing it because

17:25

they didn't see any harm to it, really.

17:28

And they wanted doctors to be free to

17:30

prescribe and pharmacists free to dispense it because

17:32

he could get a prescription for it then.

17:34

And the major argument against it, what was Harry

17:36

Anselinger. Was jazz apparently? Yeah,

17:38

it was, no, literally. I know,

17:40

I mean, Harry Anselinger literally said their

17:43

satanic music, jazz and swing result

17:45

from marijuana use. This

17:47

marijuana causes white women to seek sexual

17:50

relations with Negroes entertainers. Oh my God.

17:52

Yes, actually for madness. Christ.

17:55

This is how we pass laws. So this is

17:57

the climate. And Then the tax Act goes into

17:59

effect. The Act and then it's not a

18:01

return until Timothy Timothy Leary gets arrested for

18:03

some weight on him and he forces a

18:05

supreme court overturned the Tax Act snacks and

18:08

Freaks Out because at that point is this

18:10

period where marijuana may be legal and so

18:12

they pass a controlled Substances act and as

18:14

a stopgap measure just to kind of make

18:16

sure that they get it done, they make

18:18

marijuana a schedule One pending review by a

18:20

Commission Pacific Mrs. this a blue ribbon panel

18:22

has put together by Next and from Pennsylvania

18:24

Gov John Safer. They look into marijuana and

18:26

they come back with a report that explicitly

18:28

saying that it's time to. Decriminalize it and

18:31

make sure that adults can use it that it

18:33

has no real harm. No reason to continue to

18:35

criminalize it's it should not be a schedule one

18:37

or A circumstances. And of course Nixon ignores that

18:40

for the reason why we just found in that

18:42

quote because it was too convenient and he just

18:44

personally love to drink as you might now and

18:46

he thought it was bad, he just didn't like

18:49

it. So that's how we got here and that's

18:51

why marijuana is a schedule one as because of

18:53

Richard Nixon and his personal vendetta against the bikes

18:55

and hippies mind the millions of deaths caused p

18:57

a friend for some any. Suffer

19:00

Nineteen Thirty Seven, There's no society. We're

19:02

all so high. And Bunnymen the

19:04

Manage Maria Jobs Senate, Nixon I just got high

19:07

Once in awhile I said we would have an

19:09

aunt that apples and I look at You really

19:11

can't leave it to the next semesters like there's

19:13

all these things that. Like. How I

19:15

heard when I was a kid. Out of

19:17

unlike view conspiracy theorist nut jobs. as

19:19

I know there's like a cloud of

19:21

the person just saying yes We did

19:23

this for the reasons that you would

19:26

possibly things are the most conservatory like.

19:28

We're. Resin. As if so that brings

19:30

us of course to Joe Biden and administration.

19:32

And of course as three numbers are, Biden

19:34

was instrumental in Nineteen Ninety Four Crime Bill

19:37

which criminalized the War on Drugs to an

19:39

and just a new level and it's one

19:41

of the many things and I think in

19:43

his be accountable for. I think he's somewhat

19:45

aware of that. but this announcement this week's

19:47

is confirming what he'd already kind of put

19:50

on track and of this has been slowly

19:52

in the works for a while now to

19:54

d schedule it from schedule one down to

19:56

schedule three I should say reschedule. A

19:59

Schedule Three. drugs are defined as drugs with

20:01

a moderate to low potential for physical

20:03

and psychological dependence. The abuse potential

20:05

is less than schedule one and schedule two, but more

20:07

than four. So examples of schedule three

20:10

would be Tylenol with codeine,

20:12

ketamine, anabolic steroids and testosterone, right? Just

20:14

things that you need a prescription for,

20:16

but they're not gonna kill you. So

20:18

it sounds like progress because you're just

20:20

acknowledging that it has medical value. That

20:23

doesn't sound, I'll be honest, feel free

20:25

to tell me why I'm wrong. It

20:27

doesn't sound too far off of what

20:29

marijuana seems to be to me. Yeah, I

20:31

see the argument, but at the same time, it

20:33

is if we're in a society where tobacco and

20:35

alcohol are also legal. Oh yeah. But more to

20:37

the point though, the states have decided. This has

20:39

already been decided. The majority of this country, if

20:42

you're an American listening to this, you probably live

20:44

in a place where it's legal in some form,

20:46

whether it's with a card or not. And

20:48

I mean, I've certainly for the last 10, 11 years, I've

20:51

been able to walk down the street to the marijuana

20:53

store. Very nice boutique place where you can get that's

20:55

a great products and it's not

20:57

regulated. And I don't have a problem with the FDA

20:59

regulating it the way they do other products, but

21:01

it doesn't need to be criminalized and for all

21:03

kinds of reasons. And but schedule

21:06

three, to be clear, it's still a crime. Oh,

21:08

of course one of, yeah, nevermind. I didn't know

21:10

it's understood with the whole scheduling stupid thing. I

21:12

was like just comparing it to those other things.

21:14

I was like, yeah, I mean, it's kind of

21:16

similar to those substances, but wait, is coding criminal?

21:18

Wait, what? Those are all criminalized in some sense

21:21

or? I'm not with code any other than you have

21:23

to go to Canada for that. Not

21:25

legal advice, but you can buy it again. So it's,

21:27

I get it. I understand why people were excited about

21:29

this news and to a degree I am

21:31

too, because it's nice to finally see the federal

21:33

government catching up to the fact that it does

21:35

have actual medical value and to see the FDA

21:38

and Health and Human Services willing to

21:40

actually take it seriously. But

21:42

at the same time, this is so frustrating

21:45

because this is such a centrist brain approach

21:47

to the live brain answer to the problem.

21:50

And you have, again, if the

21:52

states hadn't already voted on such numbers and passed all these

21:54

bills in such numbers, maybe that would be different. Maybe we'll

21:56

be looking at a different scenario, but we have the reality

21:59

we have. making it a schedule three, what

22:01

you're doing is saying it needs to have a prescription. It's

22:03

a prescription drug. And I think

22:05

that's a problem, because again, we do have

22:08

an existing medical system, it's gonna have to

22:10

sort of come into compliance with existing FDA

22:13

standards, so it can handle prescriptions. It's not

22:15

that hard to get a card, I had one

22:17

for a while, but it shouldn't be necessary at

22:19

this point. Does this change the fact, okay, so

22:22

one thing, and you make great points, one thing

22:24

that's been really stupid is any

22:26

business is formed around this in California at

22:28

least, and I imagine it's the same in

22:30

all the states, they have to be super

22:32

cash-based and they can't have, there's a bunch

22:34

of things that are just really dumb, where

22:37

we've already, and as you say, if the

22:39

majority of states are already doing

22:41

this, and yet they have to be

22:43

in this weird gray market status of

22:46

not being able to get banking the

22:49

same way that other businesses can, and having

22:51

all these weird tax things that have, that

22:53

is dumb, and so does this change that at all, or will

22:55

that still be dumb? It does actually quite a lot, and that

22:57

was one thing I wanted to talk about, 26 US code, 280E,

23:02

which just to start with, this portion of the

23:04

US code does not allow for any tax deductions

23:06

or credits, just to start with, let's just start

23:08

there. So you can't run yourself like

23:10

a regular business and get the regular tax deductions as

23:13

you would expect. If you buy,

23:15

I don't know, a computer to do

23:17

business with, it's like you can't

23:19

deduct anything? Wait, what?

23:23

What is the logic behind that? Well,

23:25

that is if your

23:27

trader business consists of trafficking and controlled substances

23:29

within the meaning of schedule one or two.

23:32

So if we take it down to schedule three, then

23:34

they're out of this. But yeah, there was a way

23:36

to criminalize people that sell drugs, basically, that

23:39

you can't deduct for your drug business. I'm

23:41

sure there was some other policy reason for it,

23:43

but so this alone is gonna save the industry

23:45

billions and billions of dollars. So

23:47

it's a start, but to your point about the

23:50

banking, they're still gonna be hesitant because you're still

23:52

in a nasty gray area where

23:54

you're gonna have 24 states

23:56

that have marijuana stores that just have places you can walk

23:58

in without a prescription and just buy it. and

24:00

you're still talking about drug dealers. All

24:02

those people who are selling that stuff are considered

24:05

to be trafficking a controlled substance. And so banks

24:07

are still gonna be hesitant. I don't think that's,

24:09

we should expect that's gonna change. I did buy

24:11

a few things for a while and I think

24:13

you have to use like your debit card. It's

24:16

like, what, why am I using my debit

24:18

card? What in the world is this? What

24:20

year is it? And that requires some kind

24:23

of hack, yeah. It's really

24:25

not, it's absurd. So

24:27

I should talk a little bit what this announcement

24:29

actually means in practice and how it plays

24:31

out. And also about what Joe Biden promised

24:33

versus what we're getting. And I'm sorry, again, I

24:35

know that we both agree that we have a

24:37

moral obligation at this point to do anything we

24:39

can to stop Donald Trump, especially some of the

24:41

stuff we've been hearing recently. But this is a

24:43

particularly frustrating issue for me because Joe Biden said

24:45

in his campaign that he would decriminalize the use

24:47

of cannabis. In the same sentence, same paragraph, he

24:49

said that he would reschedule as a schedule two

24:51

at the time. I'm not sure how you can

24:53

even comport those two things together. So he was

24:55

from the beginning, he was making promises about how

24:57

he was gonna at least change the status one

24:59

way or another, which is fine. I

25:02

mean, that's, you know, he certainly, that's the minimum he can

25:04

do. The easiest thing to do, and as I said,

25:06

would be to de-schedule it, to take it off the

25:08

schedule completely. But instead what he does is he starts

25:10

off in October, 2022. You might remember

25:12

there's this announcement, again, frankly,

25:15

meaningless announcement, I'm sorry, but

25:17

that he was gonna pardon everybody serving sentences for

25:20

federal or DC marijuana possession charges. And do

25:22

you know how many people were serving sentences

25:24

for federal or DC? You're gonna tell me

25:26

it's zero, isn't it? It is zero. No

25:28

one was released from prison because that's not

25:30

really a thing. People aren't doing federal time

25:33

for possession only. They did

25:35

expand it later to some distribution and

25:37

sale charges, but again, 6,500 people got

25:41

the felony off the record for possession. That's

25:43

not nothing. That's fine. I have no problem with that.

25:45

And he was, of course, encouraging state governors to do the same, but,

25:47

you know, the blue states that wanna do it have already done it.

25:49

So, you know, for the most part. But at the same time, they

25:52

were starting to push this idea, the process

25:54

of getting it going to actually re-examine the

25:56

entire status of marijuana in the federal government.

25:59

So in August, In 2023, Department of Health

26:01

and Human Services issued a very lengthy recommendation

26:03

to move from Schedule I to

26:05

Schedule III. Now this recommendation goes to the DEA.

26:09

And this is another issue I have with

26:11

the whole thing because the DEA has its

26:13

own system of administrative courts, which we'll be

26:15

talking about when we talk about drug scheduling.

26:17

And these administrative courts have a lot of

26:19

leeway to decide what the scheduling should actually

26:21

be for any given substance. This process takes

26:23

forever. I was looking at some recent

26:25

rescheduling. There was one for a substance I'd never heard

26:28

of that took about 10 years. And it's estimated that

26:30

if they really drag their feet, something like this could

26:32

take 9 or 10 years. And of course, it requires

26:34

an administration that wants to do it. So I think

26:36

it's politically popular at this point. I think that they

26:38

should want to do it. But you never know. You

26:41

can't count on that. And it's going to

26:43

cost hundreds of millions of dollars probably throughout

26:46

this entire process to move this thing along.

26:48

When all you could do is just take it off the

26:51

schedules and say, look, the states have decided we're here. I'm

26:53

sorry. I want to make sure I

26:55

understood. Are you saying the thing Biden just announced could

26:57

take 10 years to go into effect? If it has

26:59

to go all the way through the DEA process, if

27:01

there's appeals, if there's, you know, because of this administrative

27:03

judge thing, just based on prior rescheduling. And I think

27:06

they're going to be motivated to move this along faster

27:08

than others. But I'm just saying, this is not a

27:10

matter of months necessarily. I don't think it actually will

27:12

take that long. I think there is more motivation than

27:14

that. But these announcements so often when the media makes

27:16

these things, I think that people think tomorrow that there's

27:19

going to be some kind of change when they wake

27:21

up. Yeah, I certainly did. Yeah, no,

27:23

sadly. I mean, there's kind of one in a

27:25

series of announcements about what they've been doing. And

27:27

these are anonymous sources. Nobody's even come out, I

27:29

don't think, publicly and said to confirm this. But

27:31

the DEA is moving on this. Yeah, that was

27:33

in the original announcement. It wasn't like Joe Biden

27:35

came out and said it. They did get somebody

27:37

to confirm it. But yeah, the Associated Press broke

27:39

this. So yeah. And

27:42

again, this is so frustrating

27:44

because it is May of 2024 and a

27:46

lot of people are very,

27:49

very mad at Joe Biden right now. And

27:52

how nice would it be? How easy would it be to

27:54

just come out and say, well, look at that. Legalize it.

27:57

States have spoken. Let's do it. And

27:59

he can really do that all by himself? else he has to do, he

28:01

could descheduled it and then done? Well

28:03

he can't, no, no. But he could make the recommendation, he could

28:05

push it through in that direction. He can't actually take it up

28:07

a schedule himself. But there's a lot of power with the executive

28:09

to make these things happen

28:11

the way that, and he stated where he wants

28:14

it to go. Wait, what is the process for

28:16

that? So it's a long process, no matter what.

28:18

Congress could actually just pass something, and that would

28:20

be the easiest thing. And honestly, there is enough

28:22

bipartisan support at this point, I think, that it

28:24

could actually happen. I'm just saying that why take

28:27

this weird middle ground approach when it's already legal

28:29

in so many places. Why

28:31

subject it to this regime of

28:33

prescriptions and criminalization? And I

28:36

guess one of the other reasons I should disclose why I'm

28:38

so mad about this is that you can still get deported

28:40

for possession and distribution of a schedule three substance. And

28:43

if you work in a legal marijuana dispensary

28:45

in Massachusetts, you can still be denied citizenship

28:47

because you're a drug dealer. Cool. Yeah,

28:49

yeah, and at one point, Jeff Sessions, for

28:52

a few years actually single-handedly issued an executive

28:54

order saying that if you have used marijuana,

28:56

if you admit to using marijuana in the

28:58

five years before you apply for naturalization, we

29:01

will automatically find that you are not a person

29:03

of good moral character. All right. Yeah,

29:07

so enormous amounts of power

29:09

to continue this Nixon bullshit, frankly. Learning

29:11

about drug scheduling is honestly, I mean, on top

29:13

of obviously my everyday work, but I learned about

29:15

drug scheduling first before I started doing this. And

29:17

it was one of the things that really turned

29:20

me against the federal government in a very real way,

29:22

I gotta tell you, because it's just way too much

29:24

power. And I should, of course, the Supreme Court plays

29:26

into this. We can't talk about this without talking about

29:28

the Supreme Court, obviously, because there's a very bad decision

29:31

that has upheld a lot of this as well. 2005,

29:34

Gonzales v. Rach, very strange decision because it

29:37

was the liberal justices and the majority. And

29:40

this is the one Thomas dissent, the one Clarence

29:43

Thomas dissent that I think I completely agree

29:45

with. Wow. Maybe just because of the

29:47

way he came down, I know. We've talked about this

29:49

before, but Clarence Thomas has a very 19th century view

29:51

of the Commerce Clause. This case

29:53

was based on the fact that even though,

29:55

and the facts are infuriating, I hope I've

29:57

found as mad as I am about. Summary:

30:01

Doesn't know you Imperceptible such to me

30:03

in the audience is why I'm actually

30:05

scared right now. Worried that you're

30:07

gonna burst a blood vessels? There's nothing sir

30:09

within my reach of friends into rates president

30:12

of the supreme court and I believe a

30:14

brain tumor but some kind of very severe

30:16

medical issue system with assessing says and died.

30:18

Her doctor in the lower court had testified

30:20

that this is the one thing that works

30:23

for her that tried everything else said that

30:25

tent can have essentially as effective and several

30:27

different prosecutor in California they took it up

30:29

and at here's a the Thomas to sandwich

30:31

I think just outta three to very quickly

30:33

the part of it Respondents: Nine months on

30:36

an angel rage. Use Marijuana. There's never been

30:38

bought or sold that has never cross state

30:40

lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect

30:43

on the national market for marijuana. If Congress

30:45

can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, than

30:47

it can regulate virtually anything. and the Federal

30:49

government is no longer one of limited enumerated

30:52

powers. Respondents: Local cultivation and consumption of marijuana

30:54

is not commerce among the several states you

30:56

gotta clients can wear your said wait she

30:58

was growing her own or something. Yep, she

31:01

was. ah sound two months he up to

31:03

not selling it Know, like literally, how does

31:05

the Federal government have. Any say over

31:07

that essentially of and and rates because

31:10

it's just like Marilyn itself. As as

31:12

if such federal concerned from Stevens majority

31:14

and again this as liberal justices and

31:16

sclerotic is on concurrence. guess he couldn't

31:18

bring himself to join the liberal majority.

31:20

but just to seek assistance is coming

31:23

from Congress can regulate truly intrastate activity

31:25

stay within this is actively within the

31:27

states. That is not itself quote unquote

31:29

commercial in that it has not produced for sale.

31:31

It concludes that failure to regulate that class of

31:34

activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market

31:36

in that commodity. And so he was drawing from

31:38

wicked be sober in which is punishing a guide

31:40

for growing too much weed even though he was

31:42

a speeding it to his cows and bowing week

31:45

what as a week hours a week which which

31:47

precludes keep South Hi all the time as I

31:49

was is a crime I think he much as

31:51

really I f I'm going to eat him anyway

31:54

The other that you can butcher them you can

31:56

do all god knows what but I. Can't

31:58

get my child's. For high,

32:00

what kind of government Mrs. But then again,

32:02

this is at a time when California had

32:05

a medical marijuana program. So married guy you

32:07

know descriptions for each one of the cows

32:09

individually as a huge pain has a sister

32:12

and I think it is actually maybe one

32:14

of the places where conservatives are occasionally honest

32:16

about states rights because this is absolutely something

32:18

you know who's talk about. The State Laboratories

32:21

of Democracy Right and and the Math Laboratory

32:23

of Tomorrow. And

32:25

that's what O'connor said. And in her descent essentially as I

32:27

like the states have spoken, this is something they want to

32:29

try. O'connor. Set herself. I wouldn't have about upheld

32:31

the salon. I wouldn't if I were in the

32:33

legislature voted for make it illegal in any sense.

32:36

But this is what they did and is what

32:38

they should be able to do. And that is

32:40

the President. We still have that the Federal government

32:42

even when the states have made a clear finding

32:44

with a popular vote. Many these things including a

32:47

Massachusetts where a referendum that the Federal government can

32:49

still go ahead and bust up dispensary is under

32:51

arrest. People from I want if they want to.

32:53

Now there's this sort of a day taunt right

32:55

now they're not doing That is a policy that

32:57

has defended any enforcement against. Ah,

32:59

it's just kind of standing policy from Congress that

33:02

has now been passed on a bipartisan basis. He

33:04

says something I democrats are introducing, but it keeps

33:06

them from enforcing against medical marijuana pernice. so at

33:08

least there has been that protection. But one book

33:11

I can recommend for everybody has a smoke signals

33:13

a socialist or marijuana. It's a great book. I've

33:15

learned a lot from it and it has a

33:17

lot is really infuriating information and I had not

33:20

appreciated z long history of activists who went to

33:22

prison and suffered badly to try to push this

33:24

for it to persist policy for it as part

33:26

of why I'm upset today as because it seems

33:29

like the sacrifices. Deserve more than a

33:31

prescription for the conversation around this this week has

33:33

been that we're pushing in our direction that might

33:35

finally you know wherever undoing hundred years of damage

33:37

were trying to to push things forward and to

33:39

recognize, rally the states. But obviously this is actually

33:41

something that I think Congress even now maybe might

33:44

be able to ground because they're a lot of

33:46

republicans her and are invested in the weed industry.

33:48

At this point there are a lot of republicans

33:50

coming from says recently guys on there are a

33:52

lot of right when people who smoke with this

33:54

is a fairly bipartisan issue. At this point Congress

33:57

could immediately just his schedule and that would be

33:59

fine. Just southern. How much is it valid to

34:01

blame Biden for this? Well, he could also though,

34:03

he could come out and say, I

34:05

do not believe at this point that there's any reason that

34:07

it should be scheduled at all. And I'm gonna direct my

34:09

agencies to look into that and see if there's a way

34:12

we can de-schedule it. And maybe we get that kind of

34:14

pressure going, but if Congress sees that what the executive wants

34:16

to do is schedule three, then I don't think they have

34:18

a lot of incentive necessarily to jump in. I don't know,

34:20

maybe I might be unfair. I'm just trying to get it

34:22

clear. I yeah, because I've always heard that, honestly, I've heard

34:24

it for the longest time that the president of this way

34:26

predates Biden being president of the like, the president could de-schedule

34:29

this with a stroke of the pen. And then now

34:31

sounding like not really. No, there's quite a process

34:33

to it. Yeah. Plus, don't you think

34:35

there's every chance the Supreme Court would mess that up too?

34:37

There gonna be some way they'll be like, nah, you can't

34:39

do this actually. Maybe,

34:42

maybe. It really depends, I guess, and

34:44

the DEA though, in these administrative hearings,

34:46

they have, they can take months

34:48

of testimony if they want to. They can create a massive

34:50

record that I think would be very hard for the Supreme

34:52

Court to disagree with. Because it's, you know, it would have

34:54

to be based on actual findings at that point. And if

34:57

they can support those findings, which the science is more than

34:59

there, maybe the Supreme Court wouldn't have that much

35:01

to say about it. I don't know. The findings

35:03

that like, everyone who's against this is super lame.

35:05

Like, it's proven that if you

35:07

are in favor of criminalizing marijuana still, you're

35:09

just a dweeb, man, like, what are you

35:11

doing? Those

35:14

are my findings. Yeah, exactly. But

35:16

scientists all agree, you suck, and

35:18

you're harshing our mail. That's

35:20

true. I mean, I really, I have

35:22

no problem with the FDA regulating these products. I mean, I've

35:25

been a little concerned when I see some of these, and

35:27

the labeling is terrible on some of these, these edibles you

35:29

can buy. Like, I think that a reasonable person

35:31

who doesn't know a lot about marijuana might buy

35:33

some of these products and consume like an entire

35:36

cookie or whatever, when you're only supposed to eat a

35:38

piece of it. I, there was, I have used it

35:40

for insomnia for some time, and there's an insomnia product

35:42

that's labeled as insomnia product. CBN is particularly effective, by

35:44

the way, if anybody's interested in, you know, the use

35:46

of THC products for this. And this has some CBN

35:48

in it, but it has 50 milligrams

35:50

of THC per item.

35:53

That's a lot. That is a

35:55

lot. Five milligrams is normal for an edible, and

35:58

50 milligrams is an overwhelming amount. I mean, that

36:00

is like, you should know. And it doesn't really clearly tell

36:02

you that very well on the front of the packaging. So

36:04

I have no problem with this kind of regulation and making

36:07

sure that we know where it's being grown and where it's

36:09

coming from and that cartels and environment involved. That's great, that's

36:11

fine. I mean, the FDA can regulate alcohol the same way

36:13

and send cigarettes, but that shouldn't have to be a crime.

36:15

I guess that's where I'm coming from. Totally agree. I'm

36:18

just trying to think, so how does this

36:20

work? Is this an executive agency that Congress

36:22

has decided has this power so they, but

36:24

they could pass something that just bypasses all

36:26

that? Right, and that's actually always been one

36:28

of my concerns about drug scheduling is that the

36:31

DEA, this is a very unusual power. Typically

36:33

the executive does not have the power to create

36:35

crimes, but this is one place

36:37

where the executive branch can actually make something a

36:39

crime without Congress's input, and that is concerning. If

36:42

you had like a particularly nutty president at some

36:44

point, I mean, maybe like a Mormon president, right,

36:46

that decided that caffeine should be criminalized. I mean,

36:48

this is pretty far out there obviously, but or

36:51

nicotine under my example, it could

36:53

happen. And you could have no congressional

36:55

involvement. So there's a lot of administrative

36:57

law detail that is not particularly interesting

36:59

about this, but there are a couple of options that the DEA has.

37:01

The one I was talking about that would take the longest would

37:03

be through the administrative law courts, but it is

37:06

possible that they could sidestep even the notice and

37:08

comment period, which is usually required for a change

37:10

like this. And there are options, it's a little

37:12

strange, but under treaty obligations, there's actually an option

37:14

that they can redo it through order. I know.

37:17

They did that actually with Epidylax.

37:19

I'm not gonna say that right,

37:22

but Epidylax was an epilepsy medication

37:24

that included THC, I believe. That

37:26

was kind of an odd one, but I know that there is some

37:29

other process where they can sidestep some of this, especially with the

37:31

politics being what they are right now and

37:34

the desire of being there. I'm just saying worst

37:36

case, if they went the full path and they

37:38

went all the way through the way that they

37:41

could do it, it could take years and it's

37:43

very unpredictable. Let's make a deal. If

37:45

Republicans are gonna roll back abortion laws to

37:47

1864 anyway, why don't

37:50

we roll back marijuana laws to 1864?

37:53

Yeah, 1936 even. Let's

37:55

just go for it. There's one other little

37:57

absurd thing. So the FDA, as I mentioned.

38:00

and has already approved in the DA,

38:02

signed off on a couple of products

38:04

that actually have THC in them, including

38:06

Marinol, which is synthetic THC. And

38:09

from what I've read, Marinol is very unpleasant. It

38:11

is not a fun thing to take, and it

38:14

was used primarily for AIDS patients to help them

38:16

deal with some of the side effects of other

38:18

things. And it

38:20

always seems so strange to me that the FDA

38:22

was fine with something that was synthesized THC, like

38:24

just pure THC, but not

38:26

with the actual natural product. And the difference

38:28

is that actual natural cannabis has

38:31

CBD, it has terpenes, it has this

38:33

really interesting blend of stuff that makes

38:35

the thing that we call cannabis sativa. And

38:38

just isolating THC and making it into a

38:40

pill is not the solution, but they thought

38:42

that was fine. I just, you know, the

38:44

hypocrisy and the misunderstanding and the willful misdirection

38:46

and all this stuff is just very frustrating,

38:48

I guess, to me as somebody who's been

38:50

watching this for a while. If we could

38:52

eventually move our government down from

38:54

like average age of 84 to like, 73-ish,

38:58

I think

39:01

we can make progress here. That'd be great. And if anybody

39:03

listening wants to run for office, if this kind of thing

39:05

motivates you the way it motivates me, then I'd love to

39:07

hear from you. Okay, and Matt, I

39:09

know this is us from the future a little

39:11

bit, because of all the changes and things we're

39:14

figuring out, we recorded that explainer

39:16

on the marijuana rescheduling thing a few days

39:18

ago. It's been a few days. I know

39:20

there's been some updates and some things you

39:22

want to clarify, so take it away. Sure,

39:25

yeah. It does seem like this

39:27

might actually be done by election day. It's possible, I

39:29

don't know. I mean, it really depends on how the

39:31

DEA wants to play it. It does seem like the

39:33

DEA is moving forward. The administrative law judge

39:36

who handles this could choose to have extensive hearings or

39:38

not, and it does seem like because the administration wants

39:40

this to happen, maybe they won't. We

39:42

will see. But on May 1st,

39:44

just about the same time that this announcement

39:46

was going forward, Chuck Schumer

39:48

and the Senate Democrats introduced the

39:50

Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which

39:53

is pretty ideal as

39:55

a bill. And it's much more along the lines of what

39:57

I would have wanted to see from the Biden administration. I

39:59

wish that- Biden would just throw his support behind this

40:01

because it really covers a lot

40:03

of the loose ends that the federal government needs

40:06

to tie up to make marijuana legalization reality to

40:08

catch up with the states. So it

40:10

would actually have the FDA start to regulate the

40:12

cannabis industry. It would

40:14

provide a whole host of education and VA

40:17

and Indian health services. Everybody would kind of

40:19

catch up to the reality of it in

40:21

a very important way. It would

40:23

also, of course, make sure that no one

40:25

could ever suffer any immigration consequences very specifically.

40:28

And obviously, by descheduling it, you're going to

40:30

already alleviate a lot of the immigration consequences I'm most

40:32

concerned about. And there's a

40:34

lot of good restorative justice stuff to try to make up

40:36

for the harm done by the war on drugs and the

40:38

overreactions in the 90s. But it's

40:40

just, again, it's a very good, comprehensive bill that

40:42

legalizes marijuana and that moves forward, I think, in a

40:44

very solid, progressive way that I don't see why Joe

40:47

Biden can't just get behind it. And

40:49

for the reasons I've already expressed, I'm just

40:51

very concerned about rescheduling as

40:54

the default option. Yeah, I think the

40:56

point that is worth emphasizing about what

40:58

we just listened to that I maybe

41:00

didn't grasp when we record it was

41:02

this descheduling to schedule three or whatever

41:05

the heck it is, I take

41:07

your point, I think is a good point that you

41:09

don't want that to make people

41:11

feel like, oh, okay, well, that's handled.

41:13

And then it's not drop support for

41:15

what this bill, which I

41:17

have to imagine has at least what 13, 14 senators

41:20

supporting. No,

41:22

do you have any sense of the numbers on this? I

41:25

mean, the Democrats are behind it, but I don't know. I

41:27

actually, I mean, I feel like it could be viable

41:29

in the House. I don't know what the politics of

41:31

it are, but I just know that more and more

41:33

red states and Republicans are warming up to the industry.

41:35

Well, that'd be awesome. I really, yeah, so I take

41:37

that point. I think that makes a lot of sense,

41:39

something I didn't necessarily fully grasp when

41:42

we recorded that, but now going through and

41:44

editing it in hindsight, I think that's a

41:46

great point. And it seems

41:48

like President Matt Cameron would just

41:50

get fully behind this bill, right?

41:52

I would, and I would tell

41:54

my administrative agencies that they need

41:56

to strongly consider de-scheduling. I can't tell them exactly

41:59

what to do. They're still independent administrative agencies,

42:01

but you can set the tone which he did

42:03

in his announcement back in October 2022 And

42:06

you know his the tone they said was to

42:08

review how it's scheduled not to consider de scheduling

42:10

it Is these things matter? Yeah And

42:12

I think it's a good reminder like definitely get

42:14

the word out folks Cuz I think there was

42:17

a lot of coverage of this and that's why

42:19

in the beginning of the segment I thought this

42:21

was just a good news thing I seriously I

42:23

hadn't had time to look too deeply into it,

42:25

but I thought oh hey good news great awesome

42:27

amazing I'm really glad that you provided that more

42:29

nuanced perspective, and I think it's important

42:31

for people to get the word out on that There's

42:34

a better way, and it's not terrible news, but they

42:36

don't want it to be the future either mm-hmm all

42:38

right Well time for a few updates on

42:41

Trump trial stuff I've seen so many headlines

42:43

Matt that judge cannon is just like

42:46

Taking that whole trial and like put it under

42:48

her couch And it just lives there now, and

42:50

we can't find no one can find it. Yeah.

42:52

I don't know what's going on It sounds really

42:54

bad, but what is it well the

42:57

phrase indefinitely postponed sounds very bad so it sounds bad

42:59

Yeah, I just can't actually do that in the normal

43:01

course of business That's not what she's done here, but

43:03

of course as we already know and as we've discussed

43:05

at length She has been indefinitely postponing this thing anyway.

43:07

She's been doing everything She possibly can to drag it

43:09

out She clearly doesn't want this trial to happen before

43:11

the election often when I hear pundits say things like

43:14

that I feel like they're kind of imputing or they're

43:16

kind of reading into what judges are doing But it

43:18

just really really seems like it because this

43:20

was scheduled for May 20th not very long from

43:23

now It was supposed to be starting trial in

43:25

May 20th, and of course every time I've mentioned that

43:27

date I've said there's no way that's happening nobody believed

43:29

that was going to happen of course It wasn't gonna

43:31

happen because there's a massive stack of pretrial motions that

43:33

have been well Maybe along with everything else under her

43:35

couch on her desk somewhere But I kind

43:37

of wonder what is going on in Fort Pierce, Florida

43:39

that she has been so occupied Specifically

43:43

I remember from your very excellent coverage

43:45

Matt She's specifically a judge there because

43:48

nobody gave a shit about that place

43:50

right there's nothing going on I'm not

43:52

sure what's so busy on her place

43:54

now. Could it be question could it be

43:56

that she heard about the whole gavel gavel thing? It's

43:58

like you know I want to make make sure they

44:00

can get that up and running, cover the other

44:02

Trump trial. It could be that. They

44:04

wanna get it on their feet, cover a couple other

44:07

trials, and then they can get it. Wow, first patron

44:09

actually, Janet J. underscore Janet. Thank

44:12

you, Elaine. She got

44:14

first name judge, second name. This order though,

44:16

it's absurd because there are, as I've discussed

44:18

several times, there's a number of pretrial motions

44:21

that do need to be dealt with, but they don't need to

44:23

have hearings, they don't need to be taken that seriously. A lot

44:25

of these could have just been resolved on paper. And as

44:27

we've discussed before, she does these scheduling orders,

44:30

like as a paperless order, that are just

44:32

kind of in the docket. They're not something

44:34

that Jack Smith can appeal. So she's finding

44:36

all these little ways in the margins to

44:38

run this case without having to actually be

44:40

accountable for it. And that is very frustrating

44:42

for everybody involved. I can only imagine how Smith is

44:44

doing about all this. But just to give

44:46

you a taste here, this order has a chart

44:48

in it, and it goes through and

44:50

explains exactly when all of these different events are

44:53

gonna happen. Now these are things that were filed

44:55

in January, February, March, and they're

44:57

just getting around to maybe thinking about beginning

44:59

to this explore having a hearing on them, I know. And

45:02

they include things like, the one I'm most concerned

45:04

about, an evidentiary hearing, a

45:06

defendant's consolidated emotions to compel discovery

45:08

and to define scope of prosecution

45:10

team. To define scope of

45:12

prosecution team. If that sounds weird, that's because

45:15

it's really weird. Okay, thank God. Would that

45:17

make sense? Yeah. Yes.

45:19

You'd think the prosecution team is Jack Smith's

45:21

office, right? The Special Counsel. But no. I

45:24

feel like they would decide what their scope is,

45:26

if that's the thing. You would think. He gets

45:28

to decide who to hire and fire, but what

45:31

Trump has been arguing in this motion,

45:33

and it's absurd, but he's saying that

45:35

because the deep state is out

45:37

to get him, and the Biden White House is out

45:39

to get him, that they consider the intelligence community and

45:42

the Biden White House to be prosecutors, essentially. That they

45:44

should be part of the prosecution team, and that

45:46

means that they get discovery, and it's a Brady violation,

45:48

if they don't turn it into a discovery. Like

45:51

the whole government. They're

45:54

all prosecuting me. Oh, come on. It's

45:56

so stupid. It's

45:59

just so. I'll give

46:01

a credit for creativity on that one though. Yeah, you

46:03

know, no, I was reading the motion I was like,

46:05

well, this is actually pretty good and the response I

46:07

mean it you can imagine the response is very good

46:09

But how much time would you guess motion like that

46:11

might require in front of a motion like that where

46:14

it's like, okay I want to

46:16

draw like I want to put a sticker on it like

46:18

hey, that's clever You know like a

46:20

late like one of my kids will like say Wow

46:22

creative cat I don't know something but beyond that I

46:24

mean shouldn't take much very long to be like hey

46:27

But that's stupid though. Really you gotta do real law stuff.

46:29

So 10 minute. You're right. It's gonna go from June 24

46:31

to 26 Somewhere

46:36

between those two things Yeah

46:39

for like argument for like oral arguments and

46:41

crap or whatever evidence it's an evident So

46:45

they can call in the deep state and see how they're feeling about it

46:47

Testimony from our next family here from

46:50

once again, just taking perfectly good jokes way

46:52

too far That's what she does just to

46:54

run through very quickly though So not evidence

46:56

you hearing on defendants motion to dismiss indictment

46:58

for insufficient pleading something that could have been

47:00

done in I don't know November Discovery

47:03

status reports this defendants rule 16 expert disclosures

47:05

again something that needs to happen before trial

47:07

But we've there's not a lot going on

47:09

in this case recently And of course Todd Blanche

47:11

is pretty busy right now as you might remember

47:15

Having edited somebody of his transcripts. He's supposed

47:17

to be handling this too. Yeah, so I

47:19

need him to do the VO If

47:21

we reach out hey, can you record your your unworth?

47:24

Yeah Have

47:27

him do a different character. He's like now I don't want to play that character.

47:29

Give me a better I'm

47:31

tired of being typecast is me. It's so frustrating

47:33

like I got every single opportunity like can you

47:36

play Todd Blanche? I'm like god. It's what I

47:38

always do There's

47:40

a not evidentiary hearing on defendant nauta. That's

47:42

Walter nauta his co-defendant The guy moved the

47:44

boxes around on his motion to

47:46

dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution and I'm

47:49

wondering like this guy He thinks

47:51

he's being selectively and vindictive The

47:54

toady the sidekick like

47:57

wow yeah, we don't even know who

47:59

you are I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm

48:02

sorry. Yeah, no really but like I've never even

48:04

heard the name Waltin before. I wouldn't be able

48:06

to select you from a lineup. I don't know

48:08

how this could be selective like yeah,

48:10

that'd be really hard to do. Pretty much. Anyway,

48:12

so it's absurd as usual and as

48:14

always she has long-winded explanation about this

48:16

and I just wanted to read you

48:19

the best part of the joke. Let me make

48:21

sure I can find it. Her writing is so

48:23

stupid. I can't. It's not good. Here we go.

48:25

Her writing reminds me of in, I think it

48:28

was like in junior year of high school. I

48:30

had an English class that was like

48:32

really hard. It was like the teacher that was like

48:34

the reputation of this is a challenging course and we

48:36

had a lot of vocab, you know, we had to

48:38

learn a lot of new vocab words and it

48:41

was always like you're trying to use those

48:43

words in a bunch of your essays and

48:45

stuff. She just reminds me of that but

48:47

also if the words were wrong. Finally,

48:51

the court has evaluated the statutory factors set

48:53

forth in the Speedy Trial Act including the

48:55

public's interest in the efficient administration of justice.

48:58

Upon such review, the court finds the ends

49:00

of justice served by this continuance that the

49:02

last deadline specified this order outweigh the best

49:04

interest of the public and defendants in a

49:06

speedy trial. So she's tolling the speedy

49:08

trial date which is a whole thing in federal, in all

49:10

courts that you know determine if you're getting a speedy trial

49:12

or not. The court therefore vacates the

49:15

current May 2024 trial date which no one thought

49:17

was going to happen to be reset by a

49:19

separate order following resolution of the matters before

49:22

this court consistent with the defendant's rights due

49:24

process and the public's interest in the fair

49:26

and efficient administration of justice. And my interest

49:28

in doing the shittiest job imaginable at making

49:30

this trial happen. Yeah, I mean the public's

49:32

interest in the fair and efficient administration of

49:34

justice, I'm interested in seeing a trial before

49:37

November. That would be great. That would be

49:39

fair. That's what we all want. That's not

49:41

fair if I were to think of a

49:43

word for it. Fair enough. Possibly efficient.

49:45

It might even be efficient to get that done. Maybe you

49:47

should consider being efficient but

49:49

the way that she has tripped over herself and

49:52

just dragged this thing out, I mean at this

49:54

point it is absolutely unconscionable. There's no other word

49:56

for it. I know the question everyone's been thinking

49:58

this whole time now. When

50:00

do we get Jack Smith's motion to like, can we

50:03

get a new person, please fire this lady? Like, how

50:05

do we, is that, are we closer to that? Is

50:07

that happening? What do you think? I mean, he can't,

50:09

if he wants to take this to the 11th Circuit,

50:11

he's gotta get some more meat to appeal from. I

50:13

mean, there's nothing here and she hasn't given him anything

50:15

that he can really take it up. I mean, he's

50:17

gotta really pick his targets here. Oh boy, this is

50:19

frustrating. All right. Well, if you

50:21

want some more frustration, we can go to Georgia for a minute. Yeah,

50:24

sure. Do I? So

50:26

you might remember Judge Scott McAfee's order saying

50:29

that Fannie Wallace could stay on the case. The following

50:31

is Nathan Wilkins. The order saying, hey, what are you

50:33

on? Is the electric cello? It's

50:36

Jimi Hendrix's outfit. So I said

50:39

at the time that obviously the Georgia appeals court has

50:41

the right to review this. We had no

50:43

idea, it's kind of a crap shoot about who you're gonna get when

50:45

the appeals court decides whether or not to take it. And they have

50:47

decided to take it in this term, which

50:49

means the fact that- I feel like this is a,

50:51

Matt was kind of wrong, if I'm being honest with

50:53

you. Yeah, yeah. Matt was off.

50:55

I'll go with off. Okay. You

50:58

can't be wrong in a prediction. You're just

51:01

off. You can be wrong. No, I'm actually

51:03

definitely thinking you can be wrong in a

51:05

prediction. One could be wrong in a prediction,

51:07

Matt. Well, it's true. But yeah, it's fair

51:09

to say as long as you provided the

51:11

proper context of like, well, if people are

51:13

sane, then you wouldn't do this. But you

51:16

never know if, and I think

51:18

I made the point, really, we're gonna rely

51:20

on a Georgia, some random assortment of judges

51:22

in Georgia. So maybe between the two of

51:24

us, with mainly you- I'm not supposed to write it. You,

51:27

yeah. No, I meant like combine, combine

51:29

us. And I think we had the right picture

51:32

of what was going on. But wow, that's unfortunate.

51:34

So what does that do to our

51:36

trial and to our electric chills? Well,

51:39

it appears that nothing else is going to happen with

51:42

McAfee's courtroom. I think just out of caution, he

51:44

did say the trial could go forward, but obviously

51:46

it'd be pretty awkward if in the middle of

51:48

trial, the appeals court rules that she has to

51:50

be taken on. Yeah. I

51:52

don't think that's going to happen. I think that his

51:54

appeal is, I think his opinion is pretty solid, but

51:57

we will see. They have to decide this before November 1st because

52:00

it's in the April term. November. I just checked the

52:02

calendar. Come on, man. Is it gonna be

52:04

like a lot before that? Or like what's

52:07

likely? That is so long to decide this

52:09

very obvious thing. I would think, but you

52:11

know, just appeals being what they are, that's

52:13

actually a pretty quick turnaround. Yeah, that's right.

52:15

Day to deal. So yeah, so at

52:17

this point that leaves only the DC case as

52:19

the one that could maybe possibly, foreseeably

52:22

go to trial before November. And that's gonna be on

52:24

a very tight schedule. And that of course depends on

52:26

the Supreme Court. So not great.

52:28

Boy, we're coming up snake eyes on a

52:30

lot of this stuff. It's just what Trump

52:32

wanted. Like it's playing very well into his

52:35

hands, all of this. And you know, some

52:37

of this couldn't have gone better for him

52:39

honestly. The system is designed for him to

52:41

win at this particular thing though. Like, and

52:44

getting lucky with some real Trumpy ass judges.

52:46

This really is, I have never seen a

52:48

defendant going out in so many venues at

52:51

once with so much money, just a

52:53

hose full of water, just spraying everywhere, just

52:55

law. Usually

52:57

you have to pick your battles when you have

52:59

a legal fight, right? You have to at least

53:01

decide what the triage is. But he

53:03

can just spend everywhere on everything.

53:06

And I think that's what we're seeing. This is really the

53:08

ultimate example to me of how you can buy justice. Okay,

53:11

okay. I'm normally not the most

53:13

positive outlook person. However, I think

53:15

the good news on that is,

53:17

I think he's just straight grifting

53:19

this from Republican donors. And

53:22

so it does feel like, hey, okay. Yes,

53:25

he is successfully stalled, but he's still,

53:27

to your point, he still had to just really

53:30

a fire hose of money, which I very well

53:32

know about, but his times a billion probably of

53:34

what I've experienced. And he's just

53:37

taking that from Republican donors. Like

53:39

I have to imagine that's gonna

53:41

compromise their ability to run

53:43

elections properly or well or competently in

53:45

November. Hey, that's a great point. I

53:47

appreciate that thought. Yeah, at least

53:49

a little bit. I think so. I think it's got

53:51

a costume. Yeah, yeah, cut into that a bit. That's,

53:53

so there's other places they probably would have wanted to

53:55

spend that money. I would think so. All

53:58

right, well, yeah, I guess he has. more time

54:00

to work on his arpeggios and we'll

54:03

see if these many new videos come up

54:05

on his feet. What he's been

54:07

doing is, no he's a real judge, he does real

54:09

stuff I'm sure. And if these trials ever happen they'll

54:11

be spaced out pretty well at least for gavel gavel

54:13

purposes. Ooh, that's a great time

54:15

to remind people you want to hear that

54:17

trial episode April 30th that was that

54:20

day in court, that was a fun one. We got to

54:22

hear a lot of people talk about what a piece of

54:24

shit Michael Cohen was, like

54:26

in no uncertain terms. And dirty deals, we get to

54:28

learn lots more about dirty deals and how they work.

54:31

Very interesting stuff. Find that episode

54:33

on patreon.com/gavelpod. I want to remind

54:35

everybody it will eventually be on

54:37

a public feed. For now though,

54:40

that's where those episodes are going.

54:42

So I understand that not everyone can become a

54:44

patron, sorry for that. It will eventually go up

54:46

for everyone. But for now, if you

54:49

want to find those trial episodes patreon.com/gavelpod,

54:51

I'll link it in the show notes.

54:54

And I am so excited

54:56

to have opening arguments back to the

54:58

original spicy chicken formulae, no

55:01

I have a vegetarian, the original Coke

55:03

formula. Is that a good one or a bad one? I

55:05

don't remember. I think it's a good one. That's a good

55:07

one. Yeah, the new one sucked right? And

55:10

then they went back. Yeah, okay. So we're back to that.

55:12

And in order to do that, Matt, we do

55:14

have to catch up through a few things because

55:16

we're finishing off the old format. So while

55:19

today would normally, Friday's episode is normally

55:21

just a T3B question, we're going to

55:23

have the answer, the pending answer about

55:25

the tenant that

55:27

was a little radical in

55:30

their approach to tenants

55:32

rights, I think you could say that T3B, we're

55:34

going to have that answer and then we're going

55:36

to ask the question. And

55:38

then from then on, will be

55:40

Monday answer and Friday question. So

55:43

we'll have to, but for this one, it'll be a little extra

55:45

because we got to get back to that. So

55:47

let's get on to T3B. Oh,

55:51

no, so sure. This firm has ever failed the

55:53

bar exam. No kidding. We've

55:57

got a very disgruntled tenant. She is not. Yeah,

56:01

we don't nobody likes landlords, but this is taking

56:03

it a little far I think we've got somebody

56:05

who's so tired of the landlord's consistent failure to

56:07

make necessary repairs that she decides to set her

56:09

apartment on fire The

56:11

facts do tell us that she warned everybody in

56:13

the building allegedly But of course, unfortunately, there were

56:15

some people that couldn't get out some elderly tenants

56:17

that ended up being burned pretty badly or injured

56:19

otherwise Yeah, everybody agreed though when they were interviewed

56:22

by the fire department and the police that Jenny

56:24

had warned them So the question

56:26

becomes what is the most serious crime

56:28

that Jenny could be charged with? So

56:30

we've got a arson only be

56:32

arson and assault see arson attempted murder

56:35

D arson assault and

56:38

attempted murder. So it was a weird one. It

56:40

was a weird one Now I think we can

56:42

start out just by establishing. Do you think this

56:44

was arson? Yeah, I think this is our sons

56:46

in all the answers So yeah, yeah Just

56:50

want to be sure we've established that when you intentionally set

56:52

something on fire, that's gonna be arson Don't

56:55

know if you need a lawyer to tell you that but

56:57

here we are This is a bit of a trick question

56:59

because the question is not what she could be convicted of

57:01

but what is the most serious? Crime that she could be

57:03

charged charged with yeah, and I noted that and I just

57:05

assumed There's gonna be some burden on

57:07

that like if it's if the charges were like

57:10

Kidnapping then I assumed that somebody would say something. The

57:12

judge would be like, no, I don't know, but maybe

57:14

not I mean prosecutors can try

57:16

anything And I certainly do

57:18

sometimes and some prosecutors love to overcharge and I think

57:20

that might be kind of what they're getting at this

57:22

question The first thing I did was I decided there's

57:25

no way anything is assault So I

57:27

would I that's how I eliminated B and D.

57:29

Yeah, so I'd wonder how how was my how

57:31

was my reasoning there? So

57:33

you went with arson only which is perfectly reasonable. We've

57:35

established that is arson. There's no question That's what's going

57:38

on. But there's possibility of charging other crimes here and

57:40

you were a Remember when you're

57:42

talking about this you're saying you can't assault someone with

57:44

a fire You're asking those a question But

57:46

the fact is you can you can use dangerous weapons.

57:48

This is kind of a fun I thought it felt

57:50

with a deadly weapon and I joked a fire it

57:53

is a fire could be deadly weapon In fact, I

57:55

will tell you about some of the most fun deadly

57:57

weapons that I've seen in my charging documents and in

57:59

cases I reviewed I have seen

58:01

a frozen fish used as a dangerous weapon.

58:03

Yeah, well classic weapon Obviously

58:06

you can really try to improve. That's like

58:08

one of the first weapons anyone ever use

58:11

You really want to make sure it's frozen. Well,

58:13

though. Yeah, it's pretty awkward if it's not frisson

58:16

But I've seen the ocean used as Just

58:19

and I've seen pavement used as a dangerous weapon,

58:21

which is pretty creative charging what instruments you're using

58:23

to harm somebody So assault can be and the

58:26

theory of assault here would be obviously that she

58:28

was not trying to hurt her neighbors It's just

58:30

that this is a sort of a transferred intent. You could say

58:32

that she's trying to burn the property end up burning a person

58:34

I think it's a little specious.

58:36

That was another component of it I didn't see

58:38

any way in which there's intent

58:40

there But you're saying as long as you intended to

58:42

do the thing that led to it Yeah,

58:45

and it's reckless at some point So and a little bit

58:47

of it I'm talking to Casey about this one because we're

58:50

going back and forth and of course Casey is always very

58:52

concerned about what jurisdiction We're talking about the bar doesn't care

58:54

what jurisdiction we're talking about We're generally talking about common law

58:56

But I think the theory of assault here would be reckless

58:58

that you'd be recklessly kind of because that

59:01

is an option of many jurisdictions Sure So assault

59:03

is actually still on the table and the question

59:05

becomes attempted murder now Can we stretch this out

59:07

to be an attempted murder when she warned

59:09

everybody and she clearly just wanted to harm the

59:12

property and not any people Mm-hmm. The answer is

59:14

that it can be Wow Under

59:17

basic common law sort of what's called the braved heart

59:19

murder And I think this is what the book is

59:21

getting at here now This is a little specious, but

59:23

again, we're asking what she could be charged with maybe

59:25

not convicted I think you could make a pretty good

59:27

case to the jury that this is incredibly reckless Even

59:29

if you tell people you're still starting a fire in

59:31

our department building So the idea

59:33

of depraved heart murder or sort of a

59:36

reckless indifference to human life that you're doing

59:38

something that is just so objectively Dangerous

59:40

that you should know that you know, you might kill

59:42

somebody So, you know Casey

59:45

was saying she didn't think that would really be sustained But

59:47

you could see if somebody bringing in but

59:49

the answer here is D arson assault

59:51

and attempted murder It's all three boy.

59:54

Yeah, I didn't get much of it

59:56

as funny as I said almost everything

59:58

that is important to this. I

1:00:00

noted that even that, I don't know the term

1:00:02

depraved heart, I forgot that, but I noted that

1:00:04

exact thing because I was saying if you just

1:00:07

shoot a gun in the air or if you

1:00:09

didn't, that kind of thing. But I just, yeah,

1:00:12

I didn't think this quite got there. But the

1:00:14

part where it's charged and not...

1:00:16

Now, is there any constraints on what you

1:00:18

can charge? Not really. I

1:00:20

mean, obviously, I was demonstrating a very emotional question. That

1:00:24

makes it a very dumb question. Yeah, because you can just

1:00:26

charge them with anything. So that's where a non-lawyer gets into

1:00:28

trouble. Because I assume, you know how there's

1:00:30

those rules of interpretation that the justices sometimes use and

1:00:32

sometimes don't when it's convenient to them? Sure. Where it's

1:00:34

like, hey, don't interpret a law so that it's meaningless.

1:00:37

You don't want to choose an interpretation that renders parts

1:00:39

of the law just worthless, right? Isn't that something? Right.

1:00:41

It's got to mean something. I don't remember the theory

1:00:43

that you're talking about, but I know what you mean.

1:00:45

Yeah, it's something. And then I actually

1:00:48

just do that naturally when it comes to this because when

1:00:51

I look at this question, I'm like, well, if you

1:00:53

could charge someone with anything, this question would be worthless.

1:00:55

So it's not that. And

1:00:58

then you're like, no, you could charge someone with anything. I'm

1:01:00

like, okay, well, that'll

1:01:02

get you. I don't know. I don't know what to say. I

1:01:05

think I've made the assumptions that made sense to

1:01:07

me not knowing it. And sometimes the

1:01:09

bar gets you. No, you did. And this is

1:01:11

pretty questionable. Casey had serious issues with this question.

1:01:14

So she's on your side for this one, for

1:01:16

sure. Oh, that's nice. Well, I doubt she's on

1:01:18

the side of... So she probably would have picked

1:01:20

what? B? That

1:01:22

was her best answer. There's nobody who was on

1:01:25

my side because I was on Arson's side. Arson

1:01:29

only side. I mean, it is really a

1:01:31

stretch to say this attempted murder because you're

1:01:33

saying like basically attempted recklessness and it's a

1:01:35

little strange, but it really depends on your

1:01:37

situation. Yeah. So weird. Yeah. So

1:01:39

that was an... Okay, I'm mad again. That

1:01:41

was another thing. I even puzzled through that,

1:01:43

Matt. I even went, okay, I get when

1:01:46

you murder somebody by being

1:01:48

so reckless. But like

1:01:50

an attempt, that's another

1:01:52

level of like to say you attempted to

1:01:54

murder someone by being completely

1:01:57

reckless. It's like, well, you didn't attempt to

1:01:59

murder someone. Like we know in the

1:02:01

question you weren't attempting to murder people. That's

1:02:03

a very very counterintuitive

1:02:05

thingy, okay? Yeah I

1:02:07

really want to see the the statutes and whatever jurisdiction

1:02:09

we're looking at here because I would be putting a

1:02:11

motion to dismiss together Pretty quickly, and I think it

1:02:13

would probably work, but you know it depends on the

1:02:15

jurisdiction and the law So I'm gonna file a motion

1:02:18

to dismiss this question, but it'll be

1:02:20

under appeal for two years So I will

1:02:22

take the L for now Well

1:02:25

not alone Thomas not alone because our winner

1:02:27

this week is no one no one got

1:02:29

this right Wow That

1:02:32

is surprising to me does that happen often

1:02:34

t3b it has happened But I would have

1:02:36

figured something like this was you

1:02:38

know that I would have figured there was some lawyer

1:02:40

that would pick up On the like yeah, you can

1:02:42

charge someone with anything and then like that. You

1:02:44

know like I'm surprised. No, okay Yeah, well

1:02:46

a lot of reasonable answers, but nobody got

1:02:49

it. I really appreciate that everyone. Thank you

1:02:51

for Conspiring to make me feel

1:02:53

less dumb, but do we have

1:02:55

any interesting thing to read do we have

1:02:57

anybody to give credit to anywhere? Well Matt

1:02:59

no one getting it right is a good

1:03:01

opportunity to shout out someone who's not an

1:03:03

American who used the different countries law to

1:03:06

different places law to evaluate and Gives

1:03:08

us a chance to shout out that the

1:03:10

Facebook group has started t3b now so in

1:03:12

the Facebook group. That's facebook.com slash

1:03:16

Groups slash yodel mountain they're

1:03:18

going to be posting t3b as a post

1:03:20

each week, and you can try to answer

1:03:22

this That's another place to attempt to answer

1:03:24

time to take the bar exam opening arguments

1:03:26

communities the name of that group Yeah, yeah And

1:03:30

the winner is Rory hipkin

1:03:32

who says my answer

1:03:34

is a in English law you need

1:03:36

intention To assault even if

1:03:38

it's just raising a fist to someone without

1:03:40

inflicting any punches Attempted murder requires the intention

1:03:43

to kill which I don't see here and

1:03:45

Murder requires the attention to kill or

1:03:47

the intention to do grievous bodily harm

1:03:49

which leads to the victim's death again

1:03:51

No intention here, so neither of these

1:03:53

are appropriate Yeah, well

1:03:56

you know I did there are so

1:03:58

many of us who had the the real

1:04:00

right answer, which was A. It's

1:04:03

a small answer, and I can't argue with the

1:04:05

logic. But, you know,

1:04:07

the book is giving it to you, and that's what

1:04:09

we got. Alright, well, congratulations,

1:04:11

Rory. Fantastic answer. And again,

1:04:14

go to that facebook.com/group slash

1:04:16

Yodel Mountain, or search Opening

1:04:18

Arguments Community if you'd like to join in

1:04:20

on the fun there. Alright, and now it's

1:04:23

time for our next question. Rebecca, a famous

1:04:25

violinist, signed a contract with the Grand Symphony,

1:04:27

an esteemed music company, to perform exclusively

1:04:29

at their annual concerts for the next three years.

1:04:32

Due to a sudden illness, Rebecca was unable to perform,

1:04:35

and thus delegated her performance duties to her protégé

1:04:37

Lisa, a violinist of equal skill

1:04:39

and reputation. The Grand Symphony

1:04:41

refused to accept Lisa's performance. Lisa

1:04:43

sued the Grand Symphony for breach of contract. Is

1:04:45

Lisa likely to succeed in her claim? A.

1:04:48

Yes, because Rebecca was legitimately unable to

1:04:50

perform. B. Yes, because

1:04:52

Lisa has equal skill and reputation. C.

1:04:55

No, because a contract for personal services

1:04:57

cannot be delegated. D.

1:05:00

No, because Rebecca did not fulfill her contractual

1:05:02

obligation. Oh boy, contracts.

1:05:04

I love contracts, but they're often tricky,

1:05:07

because the things that tend to

1:05:09

make it to the bar exam are the tricky parts.

1:05:13

Okay, signed a contract with the

1:05:15

Grand Symphony to perform exclusively at

1:05:17

their annual concerts for the next

1:05:20

three years. So, she's got an

1:05:22

illness, she literally can't perform, which

1:05:25

I think is also the technical term just

1:05:27

in a contract. Delegated her

1:05:29

performance duties to a protégé, equal

1:05:31

skill and reputation. The Grand

1:05:34

Symphony refused to accept Lisa's performance.

1:05:37

All right, so I feel like I remember a lot

1:05:39

of things that are close to this, but

1:05:41

I don't know if I'll know the technical

1:05:43

right answers. Now, I know in contracts,

1:05:45

I think there is such a thing

1:05:47

as delegating, you know, it's like

1:05:50

finding kind of a suitable replacement type thing, and I

1:05:52

think that is a real thing. There's

1:05:54

also the idea that they're refusing to accept it.

1:05:57

They might still have that right, even if that

1:05:59

wasn't their intention. was good. Breach

1:06:01

of contract. Okay, this

1:06:03

is tricky. All right, let me see. I'll just puzzle through

1:06:05

the answers. A, so is Lisa,

1:06:07

oh wait, what? Oh, one tricky

1:06:09

thing I just, because I'm name

1:06:11

blind, I didn't realize Lisa was

1:06:13

suing. So Lisa's the replacement and

1:06:16

the grand symphony is like, nope. And

1:06:18

Lisa sues for breach of contract. Now that's

1:06:21

interesting that because like, huh,

1:06:23

because there's definitely a sense in

1:06:25

which Lisa could have been the

1:06:27

replacement, but Rebecca could have still been the person

1:06:29

who's like suing over it. So that's

1:06:32

interesting. I guess that, I guess in

1:06:34

this world, Lisa is sort of taking

1:06:36

over the contract. I think the reason

1:06:38

I'm confused is the contract is

1:06:40

for the next three years. So I

1:06:43

would have thought this is just like subbing in for

1:06:45

one of them, but maybe I'm to understand that she's

1:06:47

like, ah, I'm ill for the next three years.

1:06:51

Don't, well, I guess it could be. Maybe

1:06:53

it's a really bad illness. Okay. I think

1:06:55

that is what I'm going to assume. So

1:06:57

that would be like, Lisa saying, Hey, I'm

1:06:59

kind of assuming this contract now. So I'm

1:07:01

suing cause give me, give me the money I'm going to

1:07:03

perform. Okay. So will Lisa

1:07:05

succeed in her suit for breach of

1:07:08

contract? A yes, because Rebecca was legitimately

1:07:10

unable to perform. I don't think that

1:07:12

will be the reason. I mean, it

1:07:14

could be, but it doesn't, it

1:07:17

doesn't really strike me as the key there. I

1:07:19

don't, I don't really, I don't like that. I

1:07:21

don't think there's enough there B yes, because Lisa

1:07:23

has equal skill and reputation. So

1:07:26

that could be a good, that could

1:07:28

be a good answer. I think B is alive just

1:07:30

because maybe part of the requirement of sort

1:07:32

of delegating performance would be,

1:07:34

it has to be equivalent. Like you can't,

1:07:37

you can say, Hey, oh, uh, this TV,

1:07:39

I was going to deliver you. It

1:07:41

fell and broke. Let me give you a absolute

1:07:44

piece of shit. Instead you could say, Hey, I'm

1:07:46

going to replace this with an equal TV within

1:07:48

a timely manner. And I feel like usually in

1:07:50

contracts, like that's like kind of okay, I think.

1:07:53

So B is certainly plausible to me. See

1:07:55

no, because a contract for personal

1:07:57

services cannot be delegated. That's interesting.

1:08:00

interesting. There's a sense in which I really

1:08:02

like that answer, but it's also the firm,

1:08:05

broad answer that Matt usually tells me is

1:08:08

wrong. Maybe it can

1:08:10

be delegated sometimes. I think there's

1:08:12

a wrinkle here in that, does

1:08:14

delegated mean that it's accepted? Because

1:08:16

it makes sense if you sign

1:08:18

a contract with, I don't know,

1:08:20

Bono to perform at a concert,

1:08:23

and then he's like, ah, I

1:08:25

can't make it. Why don't you instead hear Metallica is

1:08:27

going to perform? You'd be like, well, it's not a

1:08:29

Metallica account. We're trying to put on a different kind

1:08:32

of... That makes sense to be like, you can't just

1:08:34

sub in. Honestly, this

1:08:36

isn't a musician. This is something... It does say

1:08:38

equal skill and reputation, but it

1:08:41

does say reputation. I don't know.

1:08:43

It strikes me that this would be the

1:08:45

kind of thing that you can't just sub

1:08:47

in. But does delegate mean, could it be

1:08:49

delegated but not accepted necessarily, or can it

1:08:51

not? Delegated might mean that the grand symphony

1:08:53

doesn't even really get the chance to refuse

1:08:56

it. I know that might sound a little

1:08:58

confusing, but I promise there's a reasoning in

1:09:00

my brain that makes sense, and we'll see

1:09:02

if it corresponds to reality next week. So

1:09:05

C is on the table, but I'm

1:09:07

not sure. Do you know, because Rebecca

1:09:10

did not fulfill her contractual obligation. So

1:09:12

that seems like the dumb answer. Who

1:09:16

knows? It'll turn out to be the right one. But

1:09:18

if Lisa is suing, I think

1:09:22

there's no way she's going to lose

1:09:24

because Rebecca did not fulfill the contractual

1:09:26

obligation. I feel like Lisa

1:09:29

will lose because she

1:09:31

can't... Like Rebecca can't delegate. But

1:09:33

if Rebecca... It's just a weird

1:09:35

answer because if Rebecca did

1:09:38

fulfill her contractual obligation, then Lisa

1:09:40

doesn't exist. Lisa is

1:09:42

never born. So I don't really know. It's

1:09:46

just a weird answer because the opposite

1:09:48

doesn't make sense. It wouldn't

1:09:50

be yes because Rebecca did fulfill. And I don't

1:09:52

know if that means anything, but it

1:09:54

just feels awkward to me. It feels like that doesn't

1:09:56

seem like it would be the right logic because if

1:09:59

she did fulfill her... contractual obligation, what are

1:10:01

we doing here? Then again, maybe

1:10:03

you could say her contractual obligation

1:10:05

was to find a suitable replacement.

1:10:07

And if Lisa for some reason isn't a

1:10:10

suitable replacement, then Lisa could

1:10:12

lose for that reason. Okay, I found a way at

1:10:14

least that could make sense. However, everything

1:10:16

I have from the question here is

1:10:19

that Lisa is a suitable replacement. And

1:10:21

so if Lisa loses,

1:10:24

I think it's going to be something more

1:10:26

like C, which is a contract for personal

1:10:28

services cannot be delegated. I think that would

1:10:30

be why, or else, I think she would

1:10:32

win. So I think I'm eliminating D. And

1:10:34

I think I'm eliminating A. I don't really think

1:10:38

it's going to turn on whether Rebecca, whether or

1:10:40

not Rebecca was legitimately unable to perform. It

1:10:42

really does seem to me that you've booked an

1:10:45

act. And you wanted that

1:10:47

act, you know, be it the Rolling Stones who

1:10:49

are 90 years old and still playing or be

1:10:51

it whoever it is, whatever band it is, whatever

1:10:53

thing is like you booked

1:10:56

that you want that it makes sense that there's

1:10:58

a type of contract, which you

1:11:00

wouldn't be like, oh, you can just send

1:11:02

in anybody that's kind of equivalent. So

1:11:05

I'm between B and C.

1:11:07

So can you sub in Lisa who

1:11:09

has equal skill and reputation? Or can

1:11:11

you not delegate a contract for personal

1:11:13

services? And I mean,

1:11:16

I got to go with C. I mean, I feel like

1:11:18

I'm going to get burned on this one. But it just

1:11:20

makes sense to me that you can't just sub in, you

1:11:23

know, if you book a celebrity for

1:11:25

something, they can't just be like,

1:11:27

oh, well, here's somebody else's equal. That just

1:11:29

doesn't make sense to me. So I'm between B and C

1:11:31

and I'm going with C. All right, Thomas, I probably should

1:11:33

have mentioned this earlier, but we're playing under Charlie Daniels devil

1:11:35

went down to Georgia rules this week. So this is your

1:11:37

soul on the line. Well,

1:11:40

I don't like that. Better

1:11:43

hope it's C listeners rousing up your

1:11:45

bows and join us on Reddit, Facebook,

1:11:47

Twitter, wherever you're going to find us

1:11:49

and get this done. Wow.

1:11:52

All right. And

1:12:01

in another bit of catch-up, I

1:12:03

have to first thank the Hall

1:12:05

of Famers, the last quintile of

1:12:07

April. I'm only now, sorry, I

1:12:09

know it's late, but don't

1:12:12

worry, I preserved the names as they were

1:12:14

then, and so I'm going to thank the

1:12:16

last quintile of April. Oh,

1:12:18

I do have to tell you this, I don't know if

1:12:20

you caught this Matt, there was a patron name that was

1:12:22

so good last time that I need to make sure I

1:12:24

tell you about it. Yeah, I just want to make sure

1:12:26

you heard there was a patron who did, I used

1:12:29

a phone with a physical keyboard, I'm fast

1:12:31

at text. So good.

1:12:34

It was right after that episode. So good. So

1:12:36

good. It is why

1:12:38

the patron shout out is so fun because

1:12:40

that is genius, I really like that one.

1:12:44

So you got an extra shout out. But let's

1:12:46

go to that final quintile, and we'll

1:12:48

start with, thank you to elect Thomas

1:12:50

Smith president, American Honky Tonk Bar Association,

1:12:52

Phil Kaiser, finding the perfect analogy

1:12:55

is like balancing a muffin on a pencil.

1:12:57

Fred Grotheus, resubscribed for

1:13:00

Smith and Cameron, Milo

1:13:02

Meadsong just filed his first cert

1:13:04

petition. Wow. Big,

1:13:06

easy blasphemy. Malaika Chandler,

1:13:08

Malcolm the Dragon, the

1:13:11

precious variant, roundofthedork.com, Chris

1:13:13

Waltrip and Mitchell, our top patron

1:13:15

is Mitchell Longmay Mitchell Rain. Or

1:13:17

not, everyone else should try to

1:13:19

take Mitchell out. I'm sorry, no

1:13:21

offense Mitchell, but we like competition

1:13:23

in our pit, I don't know. And now

1:13:25

I also need to thank the first quartile

1:13:28

of Maine. So the Hall of Famers, the

1:13:30

all time grades on patreon.com/law, if you're at

1:13:32

that top tier from at least a month,

1:13:34

and I will thank our first quarter

1:13:36

of them. Thank you to two

1:13:38

disillusioned with tech to get excited about AI.

1:13:42

Misbehavior. Steve is

1:13:44

the word, is the word that you heard. I'm

1:13:47

not fast at sex, but I admire their

1:13:49

audacity. What? Andy Hanrahan,

1:13:52

John Ian Goldfinch, Rana, quote, it's

1:13:54

exactly the opposite of that, Justice

1:13:56

Alito, hadari. Yeah,

1:13:59

that was a fantastic. a quote

1:14:01

during oral arguments for sure. Logomancer,

1:14:04

I can't wait to hear all the details.

1:14:06

Well, make sure to go to patreon.com/law and

1:14:08

ask a question if you haven't already or

1:14:10

vote on a question. Audrey Arnett hates sex

1:14:13

pests and podcasts thieves. Yep, okay

1:14:15

then. Sex and gender are different

1:14:17

things and I'm very pleased to be supporting,

1:14:19

oh wait, to be supporting, oh

1:14:21

wait again. Apprentice of Adventure, Kieran

1:14:23

Ness and Jesse D. Myers. Thank

1:14:25

you so much top patrons and

1:14:28

that second quartile will

1:14:30

be next Friday. So thank

1:14:32

you so much for supporting the show. I think we did

1:14:35

it Matt. We got through all, that was a lot. It

1:14:37

was a lot of great coverage. It was a lot of

1:14:39

announcements. I am really excited. This is

1:14:41

gonna be so fun going forward. I think we've

1:14:44

hit it all. I've got no one else

1:14:46

to answer to. Besides

1:14:48

the listeners and you and decency, which

1:14:50

I always answer to, but like no

1:14:52

asshole that I have to include in

1:14:54

an email to try to

1:14:56

describe anything. Yep, and

1:14:58

we will see everyone for a regular Monday

1:15:00

episode. Fantastic interview with Steve Vladek. I can't

1:15:02

wait for y'all to hear it. We'll see

1:15:04

you there. This is

1:15:07

a production of Opening Arcanist Media, LLC,

1:15:09

all rights are found. It

1:15:12

is produced and edited by Thomas

1:15:14

Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro

1:15:16

and outro music useless permission. Okay,

1:15:23

sorry. Having trouble with farming

1:15:25

words. Oh, hi, God. Yeah.

1:15:29

I wish I were, honestly. I don't work like this

1:15:31

anymore. It might actually be easier to explain this if

1:15:33

I were high. But.