Speaker A: Is 511. That's May 11, 2022. 511, 2022. And we are at 511 South High Studio C. See how we did that, Normc? 511. And it's at 511.

Speaker B: In the world of Darryl Walt trip, boogiety, boogiety, boogiety, Boogie.

Speaker A: I bought this fine building on May 11.

Speaker B: There you go. Uh really?

Speaker A: Okay. I closed on May 11.

Speaker B: Was it Mother's Day? It might have been.

Speaker A: No, it was a Monday, I think.

Speaker UNK: Okay.

Speaker A: Monday or Tuesday. I can't remember.

Speaker B: I celebrated Mother's Day with some Frank Zappa music.

Speaker A: Did you?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Nice. Zappa. Yeah.

Speaker B: Wow. The mothers, you know, I mean, the Mothers of Invention, man. Those guys did it.

Speaker A: Yeah. No, I'm with you, man. Well, here at 511, we uh are about to embark on the roundtable with lawyer talk. So without further Ado, let's just do it. I usually go through a bunch of nonsense, but uh let's just rock and roll. So, Norm, what have we got today? What are we dealing with?

Speaker B: Well, start off with, I love everybody in the universe.

Speaker A: All right? Norm loves everybody. Now we're going to go through this is like, I did not come to praise Caesar. I came to bury him. And then I'm going to go through and praise you.

Speaker C: Come here so I can put you in the act.

Speaker B: I think we got to get right to the sizzling topic of the moment. And that is and we're all first amenders here. Right. We're all big free speeches.

Speaker C: We wouldn't be on the podcast if we weren't.

Speaker B: Right. But what do we think? Right. We bring in Rob Muse and et cetera, et cetera. Okay. And JD Vance and lots of people that believe in free speech. We like that. Elon is hopefully going to buy Twitter, etc. So what do we think about this rioting? In uh contravention of uh Federal Code 18, USC 15, seven, obstruction um of justice involving jurors, judges, witnesses, court officers outside or near a court or a residence. Clearly that is taking place and are politicized FBI and Department of Justice, Eric Holder, James Comey. And now Merritt Garland currently uh is the attorney general, very selectively enforcing these um kinds of laws. But January 6 was really terrible because 800 people went nuts, didn't destroy anything except broke some windows, but did absolutely no fire bombing or any of that kind of thing. And yet we've got uh Democrat leaders, Lori Lightfoot, Schumer Pocahontas, AOC, Jan Kalapasaki. We've got all these people or Jen, whatever name is. Uh we've got all these people saying, hey, yeah, we know about that statute, but we're just going to kind of ignore it, go out there, riot, uh make noise right in the neighborhoods where these families live of uh our Supreme Court justices. Clearly, to intimidate them before um this decision is final. What do we think about that? I'm a free speecher, but yet these people are in violation of a federal statute.

Speaker A: Yeah. The question here is like leaving all the underlying current below it. The issue here is whether this statute, which is 18 USC section 15. Seven, picketing or parading violates as applied here the First Amendment. So you could have a statute like this that reads just fine. So know, whoever with the intent of interfering or obstructing with or impeding the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing any Judge Jerry, witness or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets, parades in or near a building or housing court of the United States or Internet building, the residence occupied by Judah. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So on its face, it's fine, right? I mean, if you're going to do that with the intent of um uh influencing a decision, maybe it's fine. But as applied, it might violate the First Amendment. And I'm not sure that it doesn't here. The protesters should not be saddled with the crime of the leaker. So the protesters know about they know about the decision now. They know about it and they want to they know about a draft.

Speaker B: It's not a decision.

Speaker A: For whatever it's worth. Yeah.

Speaker B: To me that's the decision has not been issued.

Speaker C: But it's been painted as the decision.

Speaker B: Here's the problem. The decision is pending. So this is a jury that's in the jury room. Sure. Uh i'm all about the obstruction. Um i think.

Speaker A: Look, you're absolutely correct on the face of this. The conduct would violate this law. But does the law applied here uh contravening uh the First Amendment?

Speaker B: So it has driven the target Supreme Court justices and their families. It has driven them out of their homes.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: That's on the record. They're all in undisclosed locations.

Speaker A: Irrelevant to me.

Speaker B: Okay. I'm just saying analyzing what we're talking about. No. And I think there is an issue here. I think the First Amendment. That's why I brought it up. However, um just to show you that the obstruction and the intent of the protesters who have firebombed counseling uh centers, who have interrupted Catholic Services, which is another First Amendment. Right.

Speaker A: Sure.

Speaker B: Those are two different things. Exactly. So, yeah, first Amendment cuts both ways. The point is they have targeted these justices. The justices were reasonable. The justices feel targeted because they moved out of their houses. So I think there's evidence on both sides here that whatever this statute is intended to cover, it covers this situation.

Speaker A: The statute.

Speaker B: Now, is it constitutional?

Speaker A: Constitutional, which is a great analytical jump off. Exactly. Because both those things have to be assessed one under the plain language of the statute. Clearly, the conduct here is intended, or at least there's probable cause to believe. The conduct here, the protesting, is intended to change the minds of the judges, to intimidate them.

Speaker C: No question.

Speaker A: You don't have to go that far. They intend to influence the outcome of the case. That's what they're doing. Now, the issue then becomes, if you're going to charge these people, these protesters outside Judge Clarence Thomas'home, with violating this law, the first thing that I would do representing them and I would represent them. I would file a motion to dismiss based upon the fact that the law as applied here violates my clients First Amendment rights.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: They have a right to protest peacefully. Now, you can have a discussion in an argument about what they're doing and whether that is a peaceful protest or not.

Speaker B: However, Steve, let me come right back at you so you can differentiate these situations. The Supreme Court has upheld boundaries, certain numbers of feet away from abortion, Planned Parenthood sites where prolifers want to protest what's going on in those clinics and do sidewalk counseling, et cetera. Right. They have upheld uh laws that require those free speech enthusiasts from um being within so many feet of where they're trying to influence exactly where I was going with. Okay, so if it's upheld in that situation, why isn't this constitutional in this situation?

Speaker A: Because we don't know what the boundary limits are. So in those situations, a lot of times what will happen is the local uh jurisdiction will pass along and the law will say, no protesting within X feet of this uh or that or this structure or that structure or this group or this event. And they will also do something that's even more common. They will say, you can't go protest on High Street at 05:00 P.m.. That's against the law. But if you apply for a permit, then we will help you with your protest in advance, block off the roads, do whatever you're going to have some costs and some fees to pay. And then what the government cannot do is discriminate in how they uh permit uh protesters. So they can't permit the KKK uh and then prohibit Black Lives Matter or vice versa. They have to do out the permits equally without content based decisions.

Speaker B: Like the flag case where we were talking uh about in Boston, where the city permitted flags for all kinds of events. Somebody came along with something they didn't agree with and they wouldn't let them put their flag up.

Speaker A: Yeah. So if somebody wants to fly the gates and flag or whatever it was. But there was another group, there was like a Nazi group that wanted to fly their flag or no, it was a Christian group they flew then somebody else wanted to fly an anti crew. Either way, I'm all for it. I would much rather see the government not fly any flags other than the United States flag.

Speaker B: Well, that's all those crutch cases on city squares that have a Nativity scene. And so then you got to let the Satanist set up their Satan worship scene.

Speaker A: I agree with that.

Speaker B: Yeah, I agree with it.

Speaker A: Some people would push back on.

Speaker B: So then you have nothing or you let everything within reason.

Speaker A: Everything within reason. So what you can't do is let everything at any time. All the time. So the government can clearly come up with a regulatory scheme that is applied equally to. All right, so what the government can't do is say, well, look, I'm sorry, sir, you like Satan. You're not allowed to have your flag. But we are going to permit yours, sir, because you're a Christian or vice versa.

Speaker B: Let me Waddle out on a plank here. All right. Okay. And then you can saw the plank off and I'll go in the ocean, I'm going to Waddle out on a plank here and say that there's probably some case laws. So there's these nebulous words in the statute in near outside, right. And you're saying, well, wait a minute, you could be 10 miles away and you're outside of a courtroom, right?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Okay, sure. Or you can be 10ft away and be outside. So it comes down to what's the case law say is the definition of outside or nearby, et cetera, et cetera. How close can you be to Clarence Thomas's house and be in compliance with this statute? Where is that? I'll bet there's some case law, don't you think?

Speaker A: There might be? And what you're going to see is you're going to run into a couple of things. One, it might be defined somewhere in the United States Code. What those terms mean. If you look in the definitional section of the code, you'll usually find terms that are defined. Then you have to define the terms within the definitions. I mean, it's like this.

Speaker B: Okay. All right.

Speaker C: But aren't they usually uh defined when something's happened, though?

Speaker A: That's common law. So, yes. Then what you'll do is say, all right, well, one judge interpreted near as this.

Speaker B: That's what I'm saying in that court.

Speaker A: It was interpreted this way. So we're going to follow that precedent interpretation.

Speaker C: When does Scot has ever been protested against?

Speaker B: A billion times last year.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker B: All the time.

Speaker A: All the time. They're always picking out.

Speaker B: Well, that Nick kids from Covet.

Speaker A: Schumer wasn't Chuck Schumer out there saying, you're going to regret this, I promise you.

Speaker B: A couple of years ago, the Nick Covington case hit kid.

Speaker A: No, they were on the Lincoln Memorial.

Speaker B: Well, but they were there to go to the Supreme Court on the anniversary of Row. It was one of those. Oh, okay. Yeah, right. Yeah. The confrontation with the Indian guy and the drum and all that. But the reason they were there was to go to the Supreme Court and pick it outside against the Roe decision.

Speaker A: And I personally don't have a problem with that. Now, if you're going to let somebody pick it against Roe, then you have to let people pick it in favor of Row. You have to do it.

Speaker B: But how close, etc.

Speaker A: Is what is near. And then this statute draws another distinction that we talked about. But it's worth a little bit more of a conversation. This statute adds to it the element of intent.

Speaker B: That's right. For the purpose of obstructing justice.

Speaker A: Yeah. So the question is, when is that such an ambiguous statutory uh scheme? To me that, of course, you are protesting in order to influence the outcome of a decision. But are you doing it in the way that meets the statute? That doesn't. I find the statute horrible in every way. I find it offensive to the First Amendment.

Speaker C: But isn't every protest trying to change everything is why would they not do it then?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker C: You wouldn't protest uh if your intent were to whether it was an active case or not.

Speaker A: Correct.

Speaker C: You're trying to persuade them year after year after year.

Speaker B: This is specific to a decision that's uh pending. It's specific to people who are making that decision. Of course, these Supreme Court justices are no more than jurors in this situation. That's what they are. They're a jury. It's a jury of nine people that are going to decide to interpret the law. Okay, well, Mr. Steve, you represent defendants murder or uh drunk driving or whatever. And if a decision was pending, say this doctor wasn't your case, but this dock over there at Riverside or um whoever the hell it was. Excuse me. I don't remember what doctor. Yeah, whatever hospital it was system. Okay, so if those jurors are then outed somehow in the press and people want to go over there and influence that jury at the hotel that they've uh been sequestered at, that's clearly interfering with justice. You can't go outside of their deliberation room, start pounding on the door, have signs, interfere with their the old town square.

Speaker A: The picket in the town, like the written house trial, where there's picketers outside or people out waiting on the verdict. Could that be interpreted to violate this law? And I think it could be interpreted that's right. But I also think it's protected speech.

Speaker B: Wow.

Speaker A: The other thing is.

Speaker B: Even if it's intended to intimidate, to obstruct, to um coerce.

Speaker A: Uh what other reason to protest? If you're not trying to influence the outcome of something, what other reason to protest?

Speaker B: Well, this isn't about protesting the outcome of a congressional debate on passing some kind of an abortion law. These are people that are interpreting the Constitution, and you are implicitly threatening them with their physical security when you're at their house.

Speaker A: That's different.

Speaker B: And some of these people, like Kavanaugh, have minor children in the house.

Speaker A: Let's take out.

Speaker B: You got to be kidding.

Speaker A: Before we go there, let's finish up the conversation about me and a trial and the protesters outside. Two things can be true here. My client may end up with an unfair trial as a result of the protesting, and the protesting may also be protected speech. So this happened in, say, like the Sam Shepard case.

Speaker B: Hey, Steve, that's why you have changed a venue, right? When there's a hostile environment in a community for something that's outrageous.

Speaker A: Correct.

Speaker B: They remove the trial to another place.

Speaker A: If you don't think you can get a fair trial and you can establish the elements which are difficult to establish.

Speaker B: And you would argue that as a defense attorney, if it was too hot to handle in a particular town. A really popular politician is gunned down and everybody loves this person.

Speaker A: Sure, I've never successfully been able to change venue, but I've tried.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And it could be that like Sam Shepard in the old EF. Lee Bailey Sam Shepard case, that case all the way is reversed on pretrial publicity. And it didn't mean, uh though, that the media sources didn't have a First Amendment right. It's just both things can be true. The defendant has his right to a fair trial, and there can be whoever is out there making statements. They have their rights under the First Amendment. So you could have both things happen at the same time. Now when you start adding other facts, like it is designed to intimidate, that's a different thing. Like if you're trying to intimidate or scare a judge into doing something you want them to do, either by threat implicit or direct, then that could be a problem. And that's going to get closer to running a file of the statute legitimately without a First Amendment violation, because that's um the old fire in a crowd theater. I can't threaten you, Norm, and claim First Amendment. I can't say, you better do this or I'm going to kill you. I don't have a First Amendment right to do that. But if I'm just saying, go, uh uh I don't know who your racing competitor is. I'm picking uh not on your property, but outside your house for your racing rival.

Speaker UNK: Right.

Speaker A: That's not so much of a problem. That's a different thing. Now, what if I start encumbering the flow of traffic or if I start causing disturbances or annoyance uh or alarm disorderly conduct? Then you have to question whether or not it's protected speech or whether it has to yield to those other concerns. These are very difficult decisions and they require factual analysis uh with all the First Amendment jurisprudence. But to me, it's not so obvious. So if you're out there saying, no, it's just crap, they should be stopping. I sort of agree. I don't like the idea that there are protesters on our Supreme Court judge's lawns. That's an important thought to me.

Speaker B: But um if they're not making threats and to that end, Steve right. To that end, they just assigned effectively Secret um Service protection for the justices. We've gone, what, 240 years without having the federal government have to have police officers personally protect the uh physical body of Supreme Court. And now we do because of this.

Speaker C: And what's sick is it's because of one person?

Speaker A: This is why. This is why the leak is so important.

Speaker C: Everybody in the news totally missing this point.

Speaker A: Biden uh is not condemning.

Speaker C: This roundtable is the only place I've ever heard this discussion.

Speaker A: We're better than most.

Speaker C: I don't.

Speaker B: We are. Well, we're fair. You and I are discussing both sides of a very fine issue here.

Speaker A: Yes, I'm actually taking the side of the protesters.

Speaker B: Well, I can see both sides. I would like to bring Rob Muse in here and hear what he does.

Speaker A: Yeah. I'm no pro on First Amendment issues, but I see this as a glaring issue. If you're going to apply this law to say I'm not allowed to pick, it the Supreme Court building. I got a problem with it.

Speaker B: Here's what I would like. Okay. This would be my solution. I think whatever the distances are involving space between the protesters and the place they're protesting, if there is a Supreme Court sanctified distance for Planned Parenthood clinics, I think that would be a good if that has passed muster with the Supreme Court, I think they can place that same distance on this statute. Yeah, it's a starting point and all for the same reasons.

Speaker A: Look at like a law school problem. So a law school professor would now say, well, what if I just passed a law that said, what if Congress passed a law that said you are not allowed to protest outside any sitting Supreme Court judge's house or within 500ft or in the same neighborhood?

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: Where do you draw the lines? Is that law constitutional?

Speaker B: That's clearly unconstitutional, in my opinion. What is different about this statute is the obstruction of justice intent, which you raised.

Speaker A: And that's a tough one to me because there's another constitutional construction issue out there that we haven't talked about. One is vagueness and overbroad. So when a law is vague, it means that it's written in such a way that it's almost impossible to discern a meaning.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: So is this law vague in that?

Speaker B: Well, you're the fellow that said there might be definitions for what near and outside, and all that is there may be.

Speaker A: But you get into the intent to influence the outcome of that.

Speaker B: If I wrote this, uh I would have put in numbers of feet or yards. I would have stated that in the statute it shall be 500 yards away or whatever the problem is, though.

Speaker A: Then you get you get outcomes that you didn't intend because in one setting, 500 yards may be different than another setting. Sometimes you get too specific and the law doesn't apply anywhere and it just falls apart. It's a difficult law. And all these are whenever you see these kinds of laws, a lot of these types of laws are on the books and never enforced because people know I mean, I represented I worked on a case one time for we'll just say a one hit wonder rock star who was on the stage and made some comments that the police ended uh up charging him with inciting to riot because he was like encouraging the crowd to do whatever. And it was a huge First Amendment uh issue on uh whether what he said were specific fighting words are designed to incite violence or riot and imminent threats, or were they somehow protected speech. And you rarely see those kind of charges because of this problem.

Speaker B: Right. Well, that's the David Lee Roth case that I brought up after the Hoop tragedy in Cincinnati. I mentioned that I taped part of um his concert since I did the concert review. And yeah, he was charged with inciting people to disobey a statute against lighting a fire code. Basically, uh hey, flick your Bicks and in defiance of the you screw these people. Right. And the Logan Act is another good example. Nobody's ever been charged with violating the Logan Act, which is that private individuals essentially cannot go and try to influence foreign policy of the United States. So people were down on John Kerry for doing that while Trump was President. He's meeting with officials in Iran, right. Saying, hey, when Biden gets in, it'll be a better deal. Just hang on, don't freak out.

Speaker A: Who was the guy who got prosecuted in the Trump investigation? They allegedly were.

Speaker B: They alleged that they did the logic.

Speaker A: They ended up not charging him. And then they had those. I can't remember Flynn.

Speaker B: Yeah. And he was the only person that was ever closed because as an incoming national security adviser during the transition, he's making phone calls to foreign leaders. Well, he should be.

Speaker A: Everybody's doing all right.

Speaker B: He's going to have that job on January.

Speaker A: Whatever it was, it's one of those where there's still Sunday blue laws on the books in a lot of places. And just because they're on the books, this is worthy of a quick note. People say, see, the south is still racist because they still have some of these arcane Jim Crow laws on the books, but uh they're never enforced. They're de facto repealed.

Speaker B: So, Steve, great uh example. It doesn't even have to be down south. Great example. I used to do title exam work when I was clerking at a law firm. Okay, so I would go down to the county courthouse. This is in Cincinnati, Ohio. I'm sure it's true in Columbus, in Cleveland, and there were redline provisions um in the title that this property that would encumber and bind a successor purchaser of the property, that they shall not sell this property to a member of the Negro race or some language or restricted company. Exactly. Um and it would be right there in and I would go to the lawyer or the bank or whoever I was doing the work for and say, hey, this is completely wrong. It's racist, it's wrong. It's defunct, it has no place. It's been made illegal. To do this, we should extract that text from the title and the title insures and people in the trade back then, this is ancient history. But back then their answer was, we can't take it out.

Speaker A: We can't do it.

Speaker B: We've got to leave that trash language in there because that's part of conveying a perfect title. That's how it was for the previous purchaser. And even though this purchaser may himself be a black person, we're going to leave this anti black text in there, which I thought was outrageous. Outrageous.

Speaker A: It's really not. It's not a problem unless it's enforced. And these restricted covenants, it's not government action. We're talking about private transactions or about private contracts. And you have to understand that it was a big deal to be able to take down those types of covenants. And they had to find state action. They had to find government action. Because without government action, you don't have discrimination. We can go into a long historical debate about private. But anyway, the point is that the language itself, while offensive, doesn't do anything. Only the enforcement of it is the problem.

Speaker B: Some developers stuck that in there so that people living in that neighborhood years ago who didn't want to have black neighbors uh would be assured that the racial purity of the neighborhood, it would all be Italians, Germans, Brits. Whatever you don't want to do.

Speaker A: Though, is create a precedent that would be even worse. And that is a precedent where the government, on its own volition, can remove restrictive covenants without some sort of action. So I guess the owner of that property could probably do this on his own. He could probably file something called a quiet title action and eliminate the Covenant, sue to have it removed, but the government sue a spontane doing it. I have a problem with that. It doesn't mean I favor those companies.

Speaker B: No worries. I always swore to myself if I was elected a state Senator, a state representative, that would be statute number one that Norm Murdoch would sponsor would be giving people a way to have that stricken.

Speaker A: I think there probably already is.

Speaker B: Yeah. I would codify the process.

Speaker A: It probably is already there. So if I go file a quiet title action to remove an unconstitutional restrictive Covenant, I think I can do that.

Speaker B: And I would probably add language by statute making those covenants uh illegal, even though it's probably covered uh elsewhere.

Speaker A: That probably exists.

Speaker B: It may. Yeah, I would make damn sure of it. Uh i was outraged by that.

Speaker A: There's a Supreme Court case on this. On the enforcement of discriminatory covenants.

Speaker B: Of course, red lining is unconstitutional.

Speaker C: Says the homeowner, even though it's on the title, though, even take that action.

Speaker B: Well, can you imagine being imagined of being a black person at a closing? Right. And reading that shit?

Speaker C: Exactly.

Speaker B: Are you kidding me?

Speaker A: Look, I think that the owner has the ability, procedurally, to remove it. I think so, yeah. I'm sure they I don't think the government can just sue um a sponta, go through and remove all of them on everybody's title.

Speaker C: Which is a scary slope.

Speaker B: You're right.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: We limit government power in our system. The government could affirmatively, constructively take uh it out by saying that those cannot be enforced.

Speaker C: Giving a new homeowner the opportunity to say, yes, you can do that. Your government has done that to you.

Speaker B: And I would even go a little further, and I would probably provide the funding. It would take I would help homeowners take that shit right the hell out of their titles.

Speaker A: Which you could do.

Speaker B: That's what I would do, because that is so real.

Speaker C: Do uh we need to ask a title guy that is so real interesting.

Speaker A: Outrageous, I'm guessing on most of us, I confess. But we need to find a title guy because there may be a process at closing where you can just say, Take that crap out and everybody signs and agrees and it's gone without uh having the court intervene. Or maybe you could um have pre printed orders where you could just say all racial restrictive covenants are hereby removed. Upon signing of X documents and closing, you might be able to do something like that.

Speaker B: Right. And make that something that the county recorder cannot charge the person to do that.

Speaker A: This is interesting stuff.

Speaker B: Though, because I was a freebie.

Speaker A: I was a legal historian in College. I mean, that was my major. It was history. And I focused on legal history, and I read a lot of stuff. I did read a lot of property, old property conveyances and medieval right. For reasons that make nobody interested except for me. But then there's something called Manor roles and court records. And there's a reason that historically we might like to have that stuff preserved. If you go back and look for what's called in history primary sources. A deed conveyance is a primary source. It's not us writing about history.

Speaker B: I'm not arguing that. Right.

Speaker A: That is history. That's what it is. And if we go back and expunge those things from history, uh we lose them. And this is why I don't like destroying primary sources under this doctrine of Steve.

Speaker B: At the same time, I would not have a few slaves down at the Columbus Zoo so we can demonstrate that slavery was real. We don't want slavery and we don't want titles.

Speaker A: But we wouldn't want to eliminate, say, the Confederate Constitution and just shred it and sponge it and get rid of every document that ever referenced it. That would be dumb. Yeah, well, it doesn't mean that we support it.

Speaker B: No, I understand. I am not in favor of bleaching history.

Speaker C: Right. Because you do. And you realize, too, like you mentioned, the developer probably put in there.

Speaker B: That's where the Realtors were big on that.

Speaker A: Deconvances. I guess you could easily preserve the history of the deconvances until it's removed.

Speaker B: And then you would have it because you're not going to wipe out the previous deeds. They're still going to be there.

Speaker A: No, I'm with you. And look, if I were a person, say I'm African American and my deed says I'm not allowed to have this, I'd be pissed. I mean, that's offensive.

Speaker B: Well, I'll give you another example. In Maryland, Catholics couldn't own land at one point when it was a colony. You uh could not own land if you were a Catholic.

Speaker A: So you keep the relics around like the Blue Laws or the old Jim Crow laws that aren't enforced on the books. Some of that's just because they never got around to removing it. I don't think you can impart any intent. Maybe you can in some situations, but not across the board. Either way, we've gotten on a tangent, but it's interesting. Yeah.

Speaker B: You want to talk about Janet Yellen a little bit? That was kind of outrageous, which he had to say.

Speaker A: Let's hear it. Okay.

Speaker B: So Janet Yellen yesterday is testifying. You would think that the Secretary of the treasury, who I think formerly was the head of the Fed, wasn't she? I think she was chairman of the Fed before she was Secretary of the treasury. So she ought to be worried about stuff like inflation. Right.

Speaker A: You would think she's worried about giving people free schools.

Speaker UNK: Yeah.

Speaker B: Well, she really stepped in it yesterday and got into the um abortion debate.

Speaker A: That's right. Because that's going to cause an economic disaster if Roe v. Wade is over.

Speaker B: Uh since Roe was essentially codified by the Supreme Court, constructively codified 63 million abortions in the United States, of which statisticians say two thirds were of black uh conception. Uh so that's 41 million black folks she got into the racial makeup of who therefore, with the statistics, Yellen said, therefore, that demonstrates that young um black women who want to further their education or their employment opportunities need to have abortion in their toolkit so that they can participate in the economy, completely avoiding the enormous 800 pound elephant in the room that we denied 41 million people from their economic opportunities. And supposedly one of the big arguments for our unfettered borders being wide open is that, well, uh America has a shortage of labor. Well, 63 million people we would have now in this country. Right. I mean.

Speaker A: It'S not so concrete. You could say.

Speaker B: So. Black Senator Tim Scott, right. From South Carolina is sitting there listening to this racist shit from Janet Yellen. Right. Can you imagine his blood boiling you're there, white old lady? You're there telling me. Uh right, that we need no more black baby. That my community. Right. That my community needs the right to eviscerate its propagation. It's propagation self genocide, basically. Yeah. I mean, this goes right to Margaret Sanger appearing before the Ku Klux Klan Ladies Meetings, which she did. Right. And she specifically said it was to tamp down abortion was needed to tamp down the rise of the Negro. Today we would say black. She said Negro, and she's speaking to the clan. This is who Planned Parenthood was.

Speaker A: You bet. And it's all part of the eugenics movement.

Speaker B: It's part of the eugenics.

Speaker A: And you don't even need to go so far as to define a baby, a baby in the womb versus a fetus versus a Compass house uh because it's a baby that wasn't born no matter what definition.

Speaker B: It wasn't a pineapple or a Vienna sausage.

Speaker A: I agree with you. But come on, we don't need to go that far to make this point. You can just say because it wasn't carried a term and delivered, it was a black baby that didn't get to live and contribute in society.

Speaker B: Correct. It could have been a Ben Carson, could have been a Barack um Obama, could have been an astronaut.

Speaker A: And this is why these arguments like they would have been criminals. It's like it's so offensively. Racist. When I hear this stuff now, the other side of it is going to say and I think there's some merit to this, only statistically that not all those I think if you had a situation where people couldn't get abortions, there would be fewer pregnancies. I think we've gotten to a place in our society where people are using abortion as birth control, and I don't know what the percentage will be or would um be.

Speaker B: Well, I can tell you that again, the statistics were out yesterday when she said all this black women uh make up 7% of the US population. They represent um 70% of abortions, 7% of the population is 70% of abortions.

Speaker A: But it's also not fair to say that if you weren't allowed to get an abortion, all those black women would still get pregnant and still have babies to turn.

Speaker B: No, of course not.

Speaker A: Somewhere in the middle there the truth, lies or truth would be found.

Speaker C: Well, you also have the variable of the morning after pill, right.

Speaker A: We have no clue how that's going to affect no idea how many are not getting killed before they're even started.

Speaker B: Exactly.

Speaker A: And this is why these arguments are so dangerous for um people on that side. However they couch it in whatever Janet Yellen is saying about this, I heard what the quote you're talking about. And I just cringe. I was just like.

Speaker B: Well, of course you would cringe. It was racist.

Speaker A: This is so offensive. It is so offensive.

Speaker B: Incredibly so. I would like to point out something, the illogic of these claims that the border policy is driven by racism because the same people, us Conservatives, the same very same people who would get their wish on abortion, which would result in a larger voting block of Brown and black skinned human beings in this country that we want to save. We want to preserve their lives. We want them to be born. They would be a larger percentage of our population and putatively a bigger voting bloc, supposedly for the repository, supposedly for the Democrat Party. Yet it is Conservatives and Republicans that want to keep those babies alive. And yet we are charged with the motive of racism for protecting our border from incursion, um especially at the Southern border. You can't reconcile the two. If we were truly racist and that's the reason why we want a strong border in the south, then we would be pro abortion.

Speaker A: Sure. You would think.

Speaker B: No, not you would think we would.

Speaker A: They're not opening the floodgates for Cubans coming in either.

Speaker B: So it's uh like this is the very selective which Brown people they want.

Speaker A: No, exactly.

Speaker UNK: Uh.

Speaker A: It just seems so disingenuous. When these politicians start screaming, they take something that's completely unrelated and say, well, this is going to have an unequitable impact. It's a racial impact. They run down these rabbit holes that are lunacy.

Speaker B: Once again, you and I don't look at race. I do not classify people by color. I don't classify people by race.

Speaker A: I don't. Unless it's a Liberal discussion.

Speaker B: The Liberals do. Yeah, the Liberals do. They're the ones that want to identify people by race and then vest them with certain superior or inferior rights. If you're this and you're that and you're the other thing, you have only these rights. But if you're this, that and the other thing, you have superior opportunities. You have more rights. That's all crap. We should all be treated equally. Bottom line.

Speaker A: It'S such a disingenuous position.

Speaker B: Well, it's a lie.

Speaker A: I make everything about some rate. It's bait.

Speaker B: It's baitful, of course. And to whip people into a frenzy and to convince them that there is some pogrom by Conservatives against them based on their race. There isn't.

Speaker A: And while we're talking about, while we're talking about Janet Yellen, we got to talk about the school loan thing, because now she's in favor uh of forgiving school loans. I saw the best meme on the Internet. Uh look, these are not great historical first or what do I call primary sources. But it was interesting to me because there was a guy, a mechanic standing next to his either snap on or what was the other one, Mako or Mac uh toolbox? Norm, um you know what that stuff costs.

Speaker B: Oh, yeah, right.

Speaker A: So a guy goes to mechanics school, trade school, and he's got to buy 20 grand worth of tools.

Speaker B: Oh, yeah. That's on the low side.

Speaker A: That's without buying the electronics.

Speaker B: Yeah. If he's a diesel mechanic, $100,000 and he's standing by them and it's like.

Speaker A: See, I promise you I needed these. It's like if you're going to forgive an education loan.

Speaker B: That's right.

Speaker A: Then where do you stop? Because how far is it to take the mechanic, the plumber, the Carpenter, the roofer, the people that have their van full of tools and say, you don't get those things paid for.

Speaker B: No, it's absurd.

Speaker A: It is utterly absurd.

Speaker B: You don't even get your trade school paid for.

Speaker A: You get your trade school.

Speaker B: It's got to be a four year degree.

Speaker A: But you get your art history degree paid for, Norm.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: That cost you 50 grand and you're not doing anything with it.

Speaker B: No, you're there to get your Mrs. Degree or you're um just floating along.

Speaker A: Uh but it's worse. They are asking the tradesmen to pay to pay for it. To pay for your school.

Speaker B: Right. It's outrageous.

Speaker A: It is such an elitist snobby position.

Speaker B: The decision to go to College is an adult decision. Uh you don't have to go. You don't have to encumber yourself with this debt. It is a choice to go to College. And why is that choice superior in our culture to any other employees?

Speaker C: And we've built the system that that education costs a damn much because the government got involved. This is my point.

Speaker B: Last week, Ohio State can charge whatever they want because we got government line bankruptcy.

Speaker A: So the government is doling out money, collecting interest off the citizens, driving up College costs, not letting their citizens even discharge a debt and bankruptcy and then wanting Joe the Plumber to pay for it. It's freaking criminal.

Speaker C: Sure it it is.

Speaker B: Is it's a nonstarter? As Bill Maher said on his show, I think it's on HBO. I read uh the transcript of the show where he talked about this and he said the Democrats are committing suicide. They're committing suicide amongst their own blue collar voters. They're creating such resentment by the lunch pail. Men and women that graduated from high school either went into the military or they went right to work on a farm or roofing or plaster work or building walls or whatever uh the hell they did during a living working at a restaurant. Whatever it is, they didn't get a dime, right?

Speaker A: Not a Penny.

Speaker B: Not a Penny. But their buddy who went to the same high school and decided to join a fraternity and swim in a swimming pool all day long while art history is going on. And then he uh gets a note from somebody. He's basically on a four year vacation taking exams two weeks a year. Right. And we're going to pay for his shit, right? Got to be kidding.

Speaker C: And you go back to yelling and then you want something that's damaging to the economy. Okay? So you're strapping you're allowing these students to strap themselves with 100 and 2150 thousand dollars loan. They cannot pay that off until they're probably in their mid 30s. Talk about stagnating, buying homes, starting a family.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker C: And that's economy breaking in words.

Speaker A: It'S a double whammy. Because now she wants to forgive it. That's the same. That's the same as injecting 100,000 for each person into the economy. You're printing money again. Inflation is out of control.

Speaker B: What I heard is 900 billion. 900 billion. You don't think that will affect inflation? We're going to spend more money. The government spend more money to raise taxes.

Speaker A: That's too unpolitical.

Speaker B: They're going to just print it, right?

Speaker C: Well, it kind of goes along with the same lines of forgiving the PPP loans.

Speaker B: The same thing, right?

Speaker A: Just absurdity.

Speaker C: I was totally shocked. It's like both the ones I got the right because I was scared to sign on the bottom line for these PPP going, okay, I do need it. But at the same time I walked in knowing that I want to pay it back and that was cool. That point in time is like, okay, I'll sign on it, but you wiped it away and going, wait a minute, somebody's paying for my PPP loan.

Speaker B: It wasn't right for them to offer it and it wasn't right for them to forgive it. Correct.

Speaker C: And for the most part, I think the lower end of the PPP, and you probably would say the same thing, too. It didn't stay in an account for me. It went right into the economy.

Speaker A: I used it. But here's the problem. I didn't have to. If they want to shut down the price.

Speaker C: I might have been okay, too.

Speaker A: No, they should have just not shut down.

Speaker B: Exactly right.

Speaker A: It's so stupid.

Speaker B: Sweden. Sweden. They didn't shut it down.

Speaker A: Not at all. And they're fine.

Speaker B: And they're fine.

Speaker A: Right. We were right on everything.

Speaker B: The old people at the nursing homes where the visitors infected, people who were compromised. A lot of old people in Sweden died just like they did in New York under Cuomo. Yeah, Cuomo killed them. Frail people die when they get the flu. Duh.

Speaker A: It is criminal. Whenever the government gets involved uh in private affairs, it ruins everything.

Speaker B: Steve, let's lighten us up a little bit. This is a really interesting case, which frankly, I don't understand the policy. But you as an attorney can probably break this down. So up in Rochester Hills, Michigan, a guy takes his Jeep, late model Jeep to a Chrysler Jeep dealership to get worked on. This is a true case. Mechanic who didn't understand, for whatever reason, or just made a mistake, just pure negligence, perhaps. But a mechanic tried to start the car with the clutch, engaged the car. The Jeep leached leapt forward and crushed a fellow mechanic, another employee of the dealership, up against his toolbox and killed him. Uh uh The attorney for the estate of the dead mechanic is suing the owner of uh the car. The guy who brought his car to the dealership to get worked on. He and his insurance company are being sued. There was nothing defective with the car. The car doesn't have defects. It wasn't there to fix a clutch problem. That was not a modified car. It wasn't anything the guy did to the car. It was simply that it was his car and he turned it over to somebody else. And therefore, anything that happens, having turned it over to the care of another person, like I lend you my car, you get in an accident. My insurance covers that, right. The same kind of theory. So this guy is being sued, he and his insurance company for $15 million, and all he did was take his car in to get whatever the oil change.

Speaker A: It's a fascinating theory. So what happens is insurance follows the car. I know Ohio. In Ohio, insurance falls the car. If I let somebody drive my car, they may also have insurance, but I think my um insurance follows the car. If somebody takes my car without me knowing, then it's a different scenario. There will probably be a policy exclusion. So then you get in these um other options or other things like wrongful entrustment, where if I let somebody drive my car and I know they're drunk or I let somebody drive my car.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: And I know they have problems. So that's probably the theory. You have to take away the fact that it was a mechanic getting worked on and say, I just let this guy borrow my car. That's the theory. And it makes more sense that way, I think. But when you put it back into the mechanics world, here's the problem that the plaintiff's lawyer has. This is a workers comp case.

Speaker B: And the guy got his 100 grand, which is crap. Right. But that was the benefit and he got it.

Speaker A: He got it. Right. So he's trying to get more. I love the creativity. I don't think it's going to work, but I love the creativity. So I don't know what the law is. I don't know what the law in Michigan would be or even in Ohio. We need Dave Goldstein to answer that one. But I like the creativity. It's like insurance follows the car. This guy's car insurance ought to cover the losses.

Speaker B: Yes. This is all over the Internet, this particular case, because people are trying to wrap their head around like, are you kidding me? So I got to worry about taking my car to Jesse Lube.

Speaker C: Exactly.

Speaker B: Are you kidding me? I'm going to get sued.

Speaker C: That sounds like a separate piece of paper. You're going to have to write on or sign off on for insurance writer.

Speaker A: Yeah. As a matter of policy. This isn't going to work.

Speaker C: No, that sounds like a fishing expedition. It's like, okay, let's give it a shot. What the heck?

Speaker A: This is why I love the legal system.

Speaker B: This is why I hate the legal system.

Speaker A: This is how change happens. It doesn't happen artificially by creating a constitutional right for something.

Speaker C: It happens because something happens.

Speaker A: The law changes as our society changes. And it's like this constant leap for our give and take. Yeah.

Speaker C: Because I almost liking it, too. You never see a cross arm going down at a railroad crossing unless somebody dies.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker C: It stays without an arm until somebody does.

Speaker A: Until somebody does. Yeah.

Speaker B: So you predict the plaintiff's going to fail here?

Speaker A: I predict this. It'll uh probably settle.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: And it'll probably settle because the insurance company may not uh want to litigate this issue now. It may not settle if they want to say, look, we're going to draw a line in the sand right here, right now. We are not going to create any precedent that we have coverage for this. So I don't know. We're assuming facts that we don't know.

Speaker C: But if they settle, does that start the wheels turning for other things? Like, okay, it's settled there.

Speaker A: Let's keep only pushing incentive purposes, but not for legal purposes. And how often does this happen?

Speaker C: Exactly right. But maybe more than we maybe not death, but maybe damage.

Speaker A: Sure, maybe damage.

Speaker B: Yeah. A guy breaks his arm. Yeah.

Speaker A: He just smashed the toolbox for 20 grand.

Speaker B: Yeah, right.

Speaker A: That's a matter of degree. But it's easier to cover a $20,000 toolbox and it is a million dollar death.

Speaker B: Right. Another fun thing, guys. So if we're done another fun thing that's coming up. So on May the 17th, the House, the uh United States Congress, House Intelligence Subcommittee on some blah, blah, blah things, they're going to have an open UFO hearing with the Pentagon. This is the first time in 50 years it is said in the media, the first time in 50 years that there will be an open hearing with the Air Force and um probably the Navy as well on UFOs getting stuff out there.

Speaker A: Man, there's like pilots and stuff they've seen. It is crazy.

Speaker B: So May the 17th, I think. I'll bet somebody televises that.

Speaker C: Oh, I would hope so. We should convince channel of nothing else.

Speaker B: Let's see 2000 Mules and let's watch that.

Speaker A: So there's this new documentary out there. Let's talk about that real quick. Dinesh D'Souza like uh him or hate him, whatever it is. But he's got a new movie out called 2000 Mules. It's a documentary about the election and the premise is basically an attack.

Speaker B: Dinesh is an ex Con, by the way.

Speaker A: No, he's been pardoned.

Speaker B: Yes, but he's still an ex Con.

Speaker A: No, he's an uh ex Con. No, it's never happened.

Speaker B: These are not the droids you're looking for.

Speaker A: He got targeted by Obama.

Speaker B: Yeah, well, you did.

Speaker A: But anyway, the premise it's showcasing, I've uh bitched about this for years. This activity called ballot harvesting.

Speaker B: Where people go knock on doors and collect ballots uh and turn them into boxes or go around the nursing home or the special Ed home or whatever.

Speaker A: It just is ripe for abuse, of course. And what he's done is one thing I saw in the reviews, I haven't seen it yet is they pulled location data from people's phones and uh tracked the same phones going to and from.

Speaker B: Well, all these ballot boxes have cameras on them.

Speaker A: Yeah, but they were only talking about the location data on phones. They weren't.

Speaker B: The reason they were able to make a movie. Right. Because it's visual is the government had cameras aimed at these ballot harvesting drop off points so that they could monitor if there was any funny business going on.

Speaker UNK: Okay.

Speaker B: So these people went through FOIA requests to get that government film. You can imagine going through 24 hours of film looking for one guy running up. Anyway. Go ahead.

Speaker A: But from my understanding, it sort of fell short in that regard is that they didn't link up.

Speaker B: No, they had a guy. They had one guy in one night.

Speaker A: One guy. Right. They only had uh one.

Speaker B: Well, this is an example where they had one guy who dropped off ballots at 22 different ballot box drop offs in one night.

Speaker A: So what they did is they claimed that there are 501 C, three terrible foundations paying Voting Harvesters or Vote Harvesters to go out and collect votes and drop them off.

Speaker B: Well, Zuckerberg, too.

Speaker A: And they track location data from cell phones. They uh allegedly filtered uh out cell phones that before the election or before the boxes where they um were already in the vicinity. So, Brad, if you go to the same, say there's a ballot box right outside 511.

Speaker B: It would have filtered out me or it'd be a liquor store in Fretsco or the Lions Den. Wow. Brett's a straight guy, right? He's a straight man in this we're beating up on.

Speaker C: I miss a roundabout session.

Speaker B: I get shit.

Speaker A: What I suggest. I sent out a text and we'll loop you in. I want to have everybody watch this. And then we're going to do a show. We're going to all give our comments on this. 2000 meals. It's like $30 to download. So normal pay for everybody.

Speaker B: Sure. Uh thank you. I like your suggestion. We should convene together to watch this convene together or watch it independently.

Speaker A: Come in. We've done that.

Speaker B: We should watch it together.

Speaker A: We can put it right here on the big screen.

Speaker B: Yeah, we should watch it together.

Speaker A: We'll do a show out of it.

Speaker C: You're just trying to save money.

Speaker B: Well, it's kind of like one of those fights that's on. You got to pay HBO to whoever. Fight whoever.

Speaker A: So that's Dinesh D'Souza with his new movie out.

Speaker B: Uh my dad was uh in a Dinesh movie. I forget which one. I think it was the Hillary one. So it uh was just a glimpse of my dad greeting then candidate Ronald Reagan coming down off the airplane and dad greeting him at the bottom of the stairs at the airport. It was just one of those throwaway scenes. There was my dad.

Speaker C: Um and rumor. Speaking of Elon Musk, a little while ago, bringing it back home. Columbus could be the headquarters for Twitter.

Speaker UNK: Really?

Speaker C: You're on the list.

Speaker B: Wow.

Speaker C: That's a long list. Texas is probably going to be the state because of our tax situation. Is very.

Speaker B: Wow.

Speaker C: Would make him happy.

Speaker B: Well, we would give away the store like we did um into uh Honda.

Speaker C: We might.

Speaker B: Norm has a couple of legal um situations, Steve, one of which was uh my infamous parking case in front of First Watch, where I was outrageously charged with uh a huge unfairness because I parked in the wintertime and thought that I was at a legitimate um parking spot and turned out, even though I fed the meter, that nobody was allowed to park there. But there was a sign like 10ft in front of you. Well, there was a truck um blocking my view and an iceberg. The city maintenance people had snowplowed. Mountains of snow and ice in regular uh hillocks here and there. Every 20ft there's a big, huge mound. And I couldn't read the terms of the meter or anything. I fed the meters and quarters, went and had breakfast. Came out $55, $60 ticket. Anyway, I contested it, had a little hearing over the phone, the nice hearing officer knocked off $15 or some damn thing, and I paid it. But you know what? When I went to first watch today, all those meters are removed. Now, are they really? They're gone.

Speaker C: They decapitated.

Speaker B: Last week, they're gone.

Speaker UNK: Wow.

Speaker C: So I'm walking up the street, coming down the studio.

Speaker B: What an injustice.

Speaker C: Yeah. So walking down the street and the meter made, quote, unquote, whatever else to call them, she's unloading them cash before they're decapitating. And I walk up to her going, you're losing your job. She says, no, they reassigned us and everything.

Speaker A: I start talking ties. I still like a two hour or something.

Speaker C: I want no, it's all in his own number now. All that kind of stuff.

Speaker B: So no pain, no gain. Exactly. I want the citizens of Columbus to know that Nor Murdoch did that for them.

Speaker A: For the community.

Speaker B: I took the hit for the rest of humanity to show how outrageous and how unfair those meters were.

Speaker A: Almost because of you.

Speaker B: Yeah, those meters are gone because I pointed that out to the referee.

Speaker A: Uh i'm sure that's a cause and effect.

Speaker B: It's why JD won the election. The influence of this program is unimaginable uh and growing daily. I want to ask one other thing. Now, this is a little bit more serious, and we kind of talked um about this offline. But if you don't mind, Steve, can we talk about my defamation questions? I don't mind bringing up real life. I won't name names, but I was on Facebook and I made a comparison between the Nazi um Holocaust, which cost 6 million lives, Jewish lives, I mean, a lot more if you add up all the other people that were either shot or incinerated or however, they were put to death in a genocide. And I made um the comparison between six um million Holocaust um victims and roughly 60 million abortion deaths. And I said with a small H that that was um also a Holocaust, not the Holocaust small age. And a person who we were discussing this on Facebook, a person who was trolling me, accused me of using the word of being an anti Semite. Now, I'm uh half Lebanese. The Lebanese are Semites. We are part of the Abrahamic tribe of Muslims, Christians and Jews. And if you live in uh Syria, Lebanon, or wherever, my ancestors, um Israel, whatever, that whole area, uh that is a Semitic area. So I'm a Semite. I was accused of being an antisemite. And I'm just curious. So this Nick kid, the Covington kid, right. He was called a lot of things by the national media, and he settled for millions of dollars. Now, obviously, the slander, the libel uh that he was subjected to was of a national scale. So damages obviously were much more, I guess, widespread. Uh well, mine was just on Facebook um on a person's page, but yet I was called something similar to what he was called. I was labeled something which clearly I'm not. And I'm just wondering how far can you go on Facebook with a not so I'm like, Nick, I'm not a celebrity, I'm not a politician elected. I'm not an actor, a movie star, or Trump, where you can't bring a libel suit if you're Trump because there's all these outs. If you're a well known person via uh case law, I'm just a regular person like this Nick from Covington Latin. So I'm just wondering, how much defamation can I legally be subjected to before I have a cause of action against somebody who calls me whatever, a Ku Klux Klanor, antisemite, a racist, a Nazi, somebody who committed incest uh or whatever? What kind of outrageous things can you say about another person before it becomes defamation?

Speaker C: Is there something with damages tied to that?

Speaker A: Yeah, I just did some quick Googling. So this is going to be a crack.

Speaker B: That's okay.

Speaker A: Perfect. Legal.

Speaker B: That's okay. This is for the purpose of a show.

Speaker A: So first of all, we have to decide defamation could be liable or slander. Libel, I think, is spoken slanders. If you write it well.

Speaker B: You type up what you write.

Speaker A: We're talking about slander.

Speaker B: Yeah, right.

Speaker A: But defamation, generally you have to have a false statement purporting to be fact, publication or communication of a statement to a third person fault amounting to at least negligence and damages or some harm causes a person or entity who is the subject of it. So you have to prove false and truth is a defense. So, Norma, I'm going to take it as true that you are not an antisemitic. Oh, hey, we probably have a false statement. Now, the problem you're going to run into would be damages. Like what are your damages?

Speaker B: Right. I couldn't um sleep that night.

Speaker A: Yeah. That's probably not going to get you anywhere because now you're talking about intention. Now it's a different tort. Right. Damages.

Speaker B: I think they're I haven't been able to sleep ever since then.

Speaker A: They're talking about actual damages. So whatever that means.

Speaker B: Right. And then I did a Google search on loss of consortium. Uh my cats won't sleep with me anymore.

Speaker C: I would say if this gentleman or lady, whoever it was, took it even further and continued to do this outside, that is an intent so far just confined to Facebook. I think what you're saying is. Yes. How is it defined? I love the thought process.

Speaker B: Yeah. How outrageous can somebody get?

Speaker C: Uh we're all going to be a piece of that. Right. I know there's a gentleman that was removed from a board of governors because he made a comment about not similar what you did, but about the abortion. And he was removed from the board of governors because of his comment on Twitter.

Speaker B: Wow.

Speaker C: Because of inclusiveness. That's what we were talking about. This has to do with Blacks versus Jews. And it wasn't really anything. He should have been more careful, quite frankly. Uh he was on a board of governors. Um now. He really should have been made to make a mistake, but they did the right thing and removed him. They really did. They don't need that type of crap around them.

Speaker B: But anyway, kind of like the yelling thing we were just saying.

Speaker C: Yeah, exactly.

Speaker A: And then in the context, I wonder if the context will have any bearing on this, because when you're debating something like abortion, uh there are names and accusations flying everywhere. I'm not suggesting you were doing that, because I read what you wrote. At least I think I read it all. But the context of it may put you in a spot where you're sort of inviting others to critique uh and say things about what you're saying. But let's take it out of that for a second, as I like to do. I like to start with the simplest um of the equations. So somebody just says, out of the blue, Nor Murdoch is a vicious, brutal, awful anti Semitnogood son of a bitch. And if you buy anything from Nor Murdoch, then you, too are a vicious, no good, rotten, anti Semite son of a bitch. And Nor Murdoch, he sucks at driving, too.

Speaker B: That's the most horrible. And he kicks puppies puppies and he hates old people. Yeah, that pretty much does it.

Speaker A: Yeah. You sue for that? Yeah, I think you could. I think if all that's false, you could probably sue. Now the question is, what are your damages? And can you prove uh damages? And I added something in there that you shouldn't buy anything from normally did it on purpose, because once you start entering the business realm, affecting your livelihood and your income, you can have different types of my recollection is different types of slander. It becomes per. Say um you don't have to prove some of the things that you would otherwise have to prove because it impacts your business. So when people say false things, for instance, on an employee review, because somebody calls me and says, you used to have Joe Blow work for you, tell me uh about Joe Blow. Well, let me tell you about Joe Blow. He was a no good, rotten son of a bitch and antisemite his name is he beat his wife and hated old people and kicked puppies.

Speaker B: Right. That becomes parked in handicap spot.

Speaker A: Parked in handicap spot. Legally parked all over um Columbus and New Albany without license plates.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: This guy was no good.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: I think you're going to have a better chance of some sort of success than you would if it's just in general and the ether not involving um your business. So I think that comes down to the damages problem, where you have to actually prove some damages. And again, when you're in other words.

Speaker B: You might win the case, but you're going to get a dollar.

Speaker A: But I think with defamation, slander and libel require proof of damages as an element.

Speaker B: I see.

Speaker C: And I don't know why you posted, but let's say you posted. Two get responses is there a different intent.

Speaker A: I think you, too.

Speaker C: You may have just been speaking your mind. I don't care if anyone responds to this or not. I just need to put it out there. Or did you post?

Speaker A: I want now you're getting close to becoming I'm making this up as I go. But I'm surprising based on my vast legal education for three years.

Speaker B: Well, reasonable.

Speaker A: There is something out there called or there's a notion of a public figure. And if I'm a public figure, I don't get um to complain about libel, defamation or slander and libel as the Joe Blow citizen, because I've put myself out there and everybody who's seen the old movie, great movie with Paul Newman, Wilford Brimley, who is Gigit, um whose Gidget.

Speaker B: I um know what you're talking about. Yeah.

Speaker A: It's called absence of malice.

Speaker C: Yeah, right.

Speaker A: You have to prove malice. You have to prove some specific malice. When somebody's a public figure. And that's what written house probably had to overcome, I think. I don't know how that all shook out.

Speaker B: That was more the kid in Covington.

Speaker A: I said written house.

Speaker B: That's it.

Speaker A: But those are different questions. And look, I don't do this kind of another Goldstein question. We should get him in here for a day on civil law. But if you're a public figure and you may have been classified temporarily anyway, as a public figure, uh you put yourself out on a Facebook discussion. You're engaging in debate with others. It's a debate about a topic that's high energy and high emotion. Anyway. And somebody made a comment. Well, that might be harder for you to recover damages then. If somebody just out of the blue, said norms are no good, rotten anti Semite and he voted for Trump, then you shouldn't buy his goods and services. It gets different. It's easier to recover under those scenarios. But look, I think you got to sue the guy anyway.

Speaker C: Because Twitter is opening the door for that to occur, correct?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: He wants it open for him. Well, Twitter is always no shutdown of any talk. Right.

Speaker A: The difference here is that Facebook didn't shut down this debate.

Speaker B: No, it happened.

Speaker A: But what if they did? And Twitter has shut down certain accounts and shadow band, which is, I think, more sinister, where you're not getting the exposure that you would have gotten because they don't like your content.

Speaker B: 15 people see your reply versus 15 million. Correct. They throttled your exposure down. And they've done that uh to innumerable people. Dennis Prager. They've done it to very reasonable people, people who are not bomb throwers. Like, if you want to say Alex, whatever his name is, Alex Jones. Alex, if you want to say he's a bomb thrower, uh but even uh he should have the right. And in fact, he does have his Twitter back.

Speaker C: Social media. That's SOP for them, though, because they throttle, because they want you to boost your comments.

Speaker B: Well, they want you to be outrageous because that triggers more money.

Speaker A: But then they got involved politically. And this is, again, a Rob muse. We had this discussion with him a little bit about what responsibility does social media have or should they have? If they start to moderate, who has a voice and who doesn't? And then can they be exposed? Uh it's no longer the public bulletin board.

Speaker B: It becomes more of a Rob took himself off Twitter.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: And he said, you know what? He stood with the I don't want to say the conventional, but he stood uh with the Republicans or the Conservatives. They're saying it is a private entity. They get to make their own rules. They get to do whatever they want. And Rob was pretty much like, what the solution is is to create an entity where Conservatives can go. Sure.

Speaker A: And I agree with that.

Speaker B: Which was Rumble uh or whatever it was.

Speaker A: It was a rabbit hole. We can't go down because we're an hour and ten in.

Speaker B: Can I promote my event on my car show? Well, you are a good Rod dog kicking old people hating semi. I had a young lady send me an email, actually, she posted it on Facebook where we promoted this monthly car show at lunchtime and she said, can uh an envy come? And uh I had to look up what an envy was. So uh it's somebody with, um I think, fluid identity of some kind, and I still don't really understand. But I said, of course you can't. Uh anybody. Uh we're not judging religion, race.

Speaker A: We're here to critique your car.

Speaker B: Well, not even that. We don't even give any prizes. There's no prizes. Look at your car again. Ny E-N-B-Y which I did not know what it was. And I'm still fuzzy. But I immediately replied after looking it up to make sure she didn't misspell it or something. I said, sure, come, please.

Speaker A: The LGBTQ community. Uh and NB is a non binary. So NB non binary. There's a phonetic pronunciation.

Speaker C: They shorten non binary to NB.

Speaker A: People do not identify.

Speaker B: Uh i uh still don't know what that means. That's how dumb I am.

Speaker A: It doesn't make any difference, frankly.

Speaker B: Anyway, I have this monthly identify every Wednesday. Every third Wednesday. So it's coming up uh one week from now on May the 18th, we meet. It's called Columbus Cafe Racers. And you uh just bring a motorcycle car, van, new old one that's a project or one that's finished, one that you're proud of or just a beater. It doesn't matter if uh it's an interesting vehicle or if it's a plain vanilla, uh uninteresting Honda Odyssey, which I hate. You can still bring those. It's at Woody's WingHouse in Worthington. 11:00 A.m. To. Um 01:00 p.m.. No obligation to eat anything or buy anything. There's no charge, um there's no prizes, there's no fees. Nobody's going to sell you anything or try to sell you anything. It's just for fun. Come rain or shine.

Speaker A: Awesome. And when is it?

Speaker B: It's May uh the 18th, Wednesday, the third Wednesday. Of every month at Woody's WingHouse.

Speaker A: Same place.

Speaker B: It's not the one in Hilliard. It's the one in worthy.

Speaker A: And that's the one right at 270 and 23.

Speaker B: Yes, the Crosswoods. That's right back there near Fuddruckers or whatever the heck. That Marcus theater. Yeah, it's back in there.

Speaker A: The best bar. I don't drink anymore, but when I did, the ruckmore was a place I used to go get the ring game where it is on the string and you took it stuff you did love when I used to drink.

Speaker B: Love it, man.

Speaker A: But anyway, that's awesome. I will try to get to one of those.

Speaker B: Yeah, a couple of hours. You just hang out and talk uh to fellow uh gear heads and bees are not.

Speaker A: It makes no difference.

Speaker B: Makes no difference. Everybody is welcome.

Speaker A: And in all seriousness, I've known norm now for a few years and anti Semite. You are not discriminatory.

Speaker B: I am a semi.

Speaker A: It's like uh you are none of those things. You might be the most open and loving individual I have ever encountered. Almost at times, probably to your own fault.

Speaker B: I do love everybody. That doesn't mean I don't despise a few people, but I love them, right?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Which is not a contradiction.

Speaker A: It is not anybody who has read the good book. It's all there.

Speaker B: That's right.

Speaker A: All right. Well, there's been another riveting round table lawyer talk edition. Uh and by roundtable, I mean we literally have people sitting at a table that's round. And if you want to sit at a table that's round here at 511 south high studio C, you can do so all you got to do is hook up with circle 278 and Brett helping people start complete whatever podcast needs you have, you can fill it. I uh know that. How do I know that? I know that personally? Because he fills uh our podcast needs. So if you need a podcast, um you can look me up at channel 501. Com. Look up brettcircle 270 media. He is the mypodcastguy. What have you got there.com?

Speaker C: Yeah, uh mypodcastgy.com. You can go there.

Speaker A: You can go there too close to my calendar and there's lots of opportunity there. If you have a question, you want to be a guest? Want us to discuss the topic? Join the crowd. Lots of people uh are submitting their questions. Topics request for guesthood. That's a word@lawyertalkpodcast.com. So uh with that, I'll wrap it up. This has been lawyer talk off uh the record on the air at least until now.