Make it your New Year's resolution to stop weaving. Starting January 1, crossing the solid lines on the Central 70 US 36 and I 25 South Gap Express lanes will result in a $75 fine. Cross the line, pay the fine. Learn more at Colorado Express lanes.com. You must never ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize that is so calling, that is your mission, that is your moral obligation. That is your mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. The change happens because people care. You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. The fight for our country is always worth it. Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1106. I'm Thomas Smith and I'm joined by Lydia Smith. How's it going? Hello. I'm here. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. We celebrate having too much work and trying to get it all done. Our New Year's Eve countdown. Yeah. We don't have a fast watch for you this week and on this anyway. But we do. We will tell you that fast watch, doozy watch programming will be on serious inquiries only because we're doing something more, a little more sciencey because it's HHS and it's for the other acronyms. Well, so it's Health and Human Services. So we're talking FDA, we're talking CDC, we're talking NIH, et cetera, et cetera, Surgeon General. See, she knows what she's talking about because she could remember all those letters. I couldn't. So HHS is the broader category. Yes. Gotcha. Well, that's over on serious inquiries only. What we're going to do here is we got, of course, get the answer to not last weeks, but now the weeks before T3B questions. So we're going to go through that with Heather, of course, and get the new question. We're going to do the usual shout outs. We're going to shout out our patrons later on. Lydia will be there for that. Yes. But I also wanted to stick in a bit of the lot awful movies that we did. It was a law for Christmas and I have here on the line a victim of law for Christmas, Lydia Smith. How badly injured are you from this movie? Oh, God. Did we have like workers compensation policy at this job? I can't comment on, sorry, you're right. This is ongoing litigation that I cannot comment on. I'm being sued by my own wife. I'm not doing well. I'll say that. Watch this movie. Twice. Yeah. I watched it twice. She did. It was so, boy, those damages. Sorry, I can't comment. This is bad. It's going to be in discovery. Yeah. It was real bad. But Matt and Lydia and I had fun going through it. Again, it was a law for Christmas. Was there any law? Find out. We'll see. Was there Christmas? A lot of it. Yeah, there was a lot of Christmas. Yep. Was there terrible? Yes, it was very terrible. So we're going to give you a little preview here. And just a reminder that a lot awful movies is at that second tier and above on Patreon. So if you'd like to hear the whole thing, go to patreon.com/law and subscribe and pledge at that $2 level and above. All right. So I hope you enjoyed that. And then T3BE and some shout outs after our usual break. We'll get to it. Well, hello everyone. Welcome to a lot awful movies. Six. One thousand six, I guess, with a numbering scheme. We're here to collectively kill ourselves. I'm Thomas. That over there is real life. Former, the bot, the corpse of real life attorney, Matt Cameron. How are you doing? I think this might be a murder suicide. I owe you all an apology. Yeah. Or maybe you want to start with killing me probably. Yeah. That's probably a good bet. This one's on me. And murder victim victim number three. Lydia Smith. How's it going? Yeah. It's a Christmas miracle. I'm still alive. Honestly, like this. I watched it twice, folks. This isn't credibly. This is. Oh boy. We watched a law for Christmas. Because I want you to be organized. I believe that we have been catfished. I think that's what happened because this was a law for Christmas and we're like, perfect. That's exactly what we need. It's law. It's Christmas. It's the proper month of the year that we want to do that in. And there's no fucking law. There's at least the one redeeming quality of this is that we can curse on this show. That will help us get through it. There's like a one. A titular law. Is there? Oh, they're trying to, yeah. I guess they're trying to pass something. Would you call that a law? Well, in this universe, we don't pass laws. There's no Congress. I think we're maybe in an alternate timeline. There's a ministry department though. Yes. So I will tell you, Deb, you guys figured out what the deal is with this movie because I figured it out. Really? I think so. I think so. Well, we'll see if we're on. Well, let me, let me give my guesses first and you can tell me. So I feel like these things are some sort of money laundering scheme usually or something. But here's why I think this one is like, I worry that this, this is real. You know, like that's my first thing to think with these is like this is not a real movie. This is pretend somebody's pulling a stunt, but this thing is two fucking hours and 21 minutes. You didn't need to do that. It sure is. You didn't need to. We get it. We get the shtick. You make the world's worst fucking movie. It's reminiscent of the Hallmark ones where a big town, a big city person, a woman comes down to the country and realizes she shouldn't value anything except this guy or whatever. You know, the normal crap in the spirit of Christmas, but it's two hours and 20 minutes. They could have done this in 15 minutes, but at least, you know, maybe 80 minutes to make a movie. Why is it so long? They must that this must be a genuine effort. I don't know. Are you saying they should have caught the part where she just watches the jet come in or should maybe they cut the part where they tell the entire Christmas story? Do you really want to lose that? Yeah. I mean, you've never heard that before. The Jesus one. I mean, it gave them goosebumps. Okay. Yeah. That's why they had to keep it. Never heard it told that way. There is a key to understanding this entire movie. There's one fact you need to know. And that is that the Wesley brothers who are really taking it upon themselves to make it a thing that they're the Wesley brothers, they are both German and their primary language is German and they live in Germany. So that helps to start. That actually helps a lot a little bit. Now, I will say now, if they'd been written entirely by Germans, I would maybe start to forgive them a little. I'm never going to forgive anybody for participating in this movie. Yeah. The problem is that people are in the movie speaking English and they should have said something. They should have had some questions about the script. Yeah. All of it. But the script was co-written, not just by Joshua and Simon Wesley, but by someone named Jeffrey Wilson, who appears to be an author who lives in Florida, who presumably is an American who understands how America works, which this movie does not. Nope. Not at all. Not true. Can't be true. There's no possible way it's true. This is the funniest. Look, no one knows anything, I guess. No one, everyone's ignorant. That's why we have opening arguments to try to teach some people some stuff, I guess. But this is extreme. If I asked Arlo and Phoebe, vaguely, "How do you think the government works?" I think they would get closer than this movie does. That was my thought. Before I realized who had actually written this movie, I was like, "This was written by children. This is just a prank." Yeah. Actual children wrote this. I don't mean like baby-brained adults. I mean like, you know, kids. But no. Very young people. It's amazing. Yeah. I also want to say, if you go to their website, their website is also amazing. It's true. Hey, Jeff Wilson, who was a co-writer of this movie, also is in this movie as an actor. Also his daughter is in this movie. And he is quoted on their website. The Wesley Brothers, well, it says, "The Wesley Bros." Not only have a keen eye for the art of film, but also proved they are masters of storytelling. Jeffrey Wilson, New York Journal best-selling author. Well, they're telling his stories, of course. Of course, it's a master. Yeah. I just want to read this biography very quickly. Jeffrey Wilson is an award-winning supernatural thriller author from Florida. Before he became a best-selling author, he worked as an actor, trauma and vascular surgeon, firefighter, naval officer, paramedic, diving instructor, and jet pilot. No. That's a fake. Again, if someone, a kid, made up a bio. I hope that he's better at flying jets, because that's too many things. Still what? This is a fake guy. He can't be real. He can't exist. Right. Yeah. But if he writes the way he flies jets and the other way around, I don't know, where he's in trouble. He's got GPT. And then they're like, "Well, chat GPT can do all those things, so that means this person." But this isn't even good enough for chat GPT. No. No. No. This is really bad. That's incredible. So they are, we'll get lots of this. They are very, very Christian. And on their website, they also have a section that says, "For actors and crew," that's what you click on it. And it lists their core values. They have a Christian set policy. Here you go. We make films to evangelize, but the set is not part of it. Supernatural unity and fighting with prayer helps to fulfill the mission as a team. That's why we have a 100% Christian set policy. Oh my god. Sounds tough, but that is how the industry is. Are you allowed to do that? No. No. It also says that- Can we sue him or something? Actors are not allowed to kiss. As producers, our actors are our responsibility for the time of the shoot. As shepherds, we have a God-given responsibility to care for our sheep much like a pastor. Actors are long gone from their spouses and devils try to attack. Long nights on set and the intense practicing between a man and woman is irreplaceable. Oh my god. I'm looking at this and they did this like this. The way they have it, no actors kissing, Christian set policy. These are bonuses. These are features of their murder. I know. Thoughts on the font. Since you're looking at the website, I would like to know what you think. Fake typewriter font. Do you want to like, do you want to care for it? I do like the sans serif they're using though. That is actually a nice bold sans serif. Okay. Okay. All right. But also perfection honors God. It's just, that's super fashy. Yeah. Folks, if they're listening and have been in like the ex evangelical space, might actually know or have heard of Joshua Wesley. He made headlines because he wished his girlfriend a happy 18th birthday. Yeah. Finally 18. So Matt sent you a picture in the slack if you want to check it out. Oh my God. This seems familiar to me. Yeah. It was a meme briefly. Yeah. But that this can't be real though. Right? There's no. Oh, yeah. Oh, it is. No, that's not 100% real. Yes, can't be. Finally 18. Can't be real. No. No, I can't describe with words. What kind of person you are. You've been my best friend for four years. No, four years. No. This is fake. 18. Yeah. I don't, I, I just know this. So. Just can't be real. You're not telling you the math for real Thomas. Can't be the math on this one. You cannot tell me, I thought this was fake. I really, I saw this and I was like, that's a great parody. You can't, I don't believe you. This can't be real. No, that's one of the men who made this movie. No. This is who he is and she worked on the movie as well. You know. Is that director? I think so. Yeah. So he was 20 when she was 14 and then, but there, there were some posts that I saw in Reddit that said he was actually her camp counselor when she was 12. Yeah. And that that's how they first met. And then they started dating when she was 14 and he was 20. Which is legal in Germany. I do. Legal in Germany. Yeah. Age of consent in Germany is 14. Yeah. Oh my God. I hate to point that out. Maybe they should fix that. Yeah. Yeah. I know. That seems, that seems too young to me. Yeah. Yep. Yep. As long as both parties are under 21, one of them can be 14. Just, there's no good version of that story. No. It's not healthy. Finally 18. What? Yeah. How is this not a joke? I thought. With the big 18 balloons. It says finally 18. I can't. I know. It's been my best friend for four years. There has to be a joke. You can't. I don't think so. So in the same way, obviously that like they are in their opinion, serious filmmakers. It's a Christian set. Actors aren't allowed to kiss. But like they are very, very serious about this. This was their first big feature with a budget, apparently. But they are very active. Define a budget. Budget. Yeah. 80,000 I think. Was it? That's what they were trying to raise. I found a YouTube video where he's raising money for this and talking about what a great movie is going to pick. Oh my gosh. And he said we need, we don't have like 50 to 80,000 that we're going to need for this. This movie is a rip off at the price of free. Yes. It's costing me money to watch. Yeah. It's a 0.1 out of 10 on IMDB. Some gems in here. Genuinely one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm not sure what went wrong with this film, but it's genuinely one of the worst films I've ever seen. Yeah, because it had such a recipe for success. How did they fumble this ball? Created a review account just to say how bad it was and to warn people against watching it. Was this you? You have to tell us. No, it wasn't me. My favorite. God deserves better. I don't know about that. Oh, this really did end up being a god-awful movie. We actually didn't totally know from the title. I thought, I mean, it does. Again, it's a law for Christmas. We thought we're not trying to croach, you know, we're not trying to croach on their territory, but it turned out to just be God. When you say it, that way it sounds like a Muslim Christmas movie, a law for Christmas. Yeah. Yeah. It is LAW. It just everyone understands there is a law somewhere in here. Actually Savannah Latham, the star, who I feel a little bit bad for. A little bit bad for her. She clearly. She was young. She wanted a job. Yeah. They offered a lead. But she does not list this in her IMDB biography because, of course, on her IMDB because, you know, it has to be. But it's not something she's playing up at all. She knows. I don't know, perhaps. But, and maybe this is part of like the contract or something that she signed, but she did like a 17-minute interview on their YouTube page. It's probably contractual. Yeah. Yeah. At the time where she said it was really important to her that she do a movie combining like the two things that she loves the most. Like God. And movies. Christmas. But she was actually. She was terrible. Scripps and terrible acting. The two favorite things. She was actually a, she was in lost a million years ago. Yeah. I saw that she was a little kid on lost. A little kid on lost. She ended up getting sick and then went away from acting for a very long time. So this was her first movie back in the acting space. Yeah. It's so bad. Chase Giacomo. I do want to point out is playing a graduate of Harvard Law School and is in fact a graduate of Harvard Law School. Just a fun fact there. And trust and use a name from this movie as though that's something. Oh yeah. Oh no. Chase Giacomo. No, I know. No one knows who that is. You got to say the citizen who, the bystander they found whose name is this did that. He's not an actor. There's not real. That's true. He's not a no name. He does have that look though. I will say he looks like a hallmark actor. I've never seen a single salt hallmark movie, but he looks like it should be in any number of art movies. And he seems to be pretty clearly gay to me. Unless there's. Oh no. He's very married. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. So we still don't know. I don't know on that. Yeah. We'll find out. Yeah. So he was actually in the military and then went to law school after the military and then practiced in trust in a state's law and then something he felt calling to him I'm sure from God or whatever that he needed to act. And so he started acting a couple years ago. I was born to do this, you know, what is acting about pretending you're something you're not. Some people have a lot of practice in that. I don't know if he's the best actor. It's hard to really say they're not going to. Sorry. What? No one's going to understand what you're using. No way. The kid. The kid is the best actor. The kid. Okay. The kid. We actually said this. The kid is not is not bad. In terms of kid actors, which are not. That's hard. It's very hard to do. Sure. Liddy and I both were like this little girl nailed it. The extent that one could in this atmosphere, she's the daughter of the guy who co-wrote it. Jeffery Wilson. Jeffery Wilson. That's a kid. Good. Good work, Jeffery Wilson. He gets a generation. All right. Should we dig into this or? I think we're done here. Before we get to the plot, I just wanted to note, I'm sure you already noticed the character names and how delightful they are. Yes. Really. Hold on. Brilliant, thematic tie-ins of the names. It's really subtle. What above my head? Yeah. Yeah. Gloria Winters. Gloria Winters. Yeah. Gloria and Winters. We have Christian Baker, which isn't, you know, he's Christian. I'm pretty sure in Gam movies, there has been literally the character Christian Baker, at least, two to ten twice. Really? Like I'm pretty sure. And then we got a character named Rudolph, because why not? Yeah. That's a very popular name. Carol. Carol. Christmas Carol. And Noelle is the daughter. And Noelle. And then the very first act that she takes in the movie is firing a guy named Nicholas, just before Christmas. Yeah. That was subtle. And then Carol has a friend named Mercy that we never meet, so we have to know her name, because it's Mercy. Right. Let me set up really very, very quickly. Gloria Winters, she's horrible, and we get this, like, parody of her talking on the phone and yelling at somebody on the phone. That said a minute, if you want to play that too, because that really kind of sets the stage for her firstness. Incredible. Okay. Hold on. I just need a, I need to say a small prayer meditate. Yeah. Uh-huh. In the Christmas tree, what's that? What do you mean you won't have the documents ready by the end of this year? We need the approvals. It's a critical step for the modernization of the subway system. Of course it is important, 2.4 million people are relying on us. Really? No, no, no, no. Look at this game. I don't care. You need to get this done now. This is a day like any other. You can take a day off once the documents are finalized, with attitude you will never succeed. There's a lot of talk about the documents in this movie. Yeah, the documents that are all about the documents. Already in a few sentences, they've set up a quantum impossibility of what this is supposed to be. Like, I can't even, what, what... It gets worse. What? Yeah, it's already so good. Turn it off at that point. It does get worse. Yeah. What entity are you? What is this? Yes. What are these papers? You're not, you're not going to... Who could, who, what kind of papers could these be that one person is in charge of getting them done for whatever? Would you like to know? The fuck this is, Matt? So she walks straight into the office and her assistant tells her immediately that a new position is open in the Ministry Department and Gloria says she'll just take it. She doesn't care what it is. Apparently it's a cabinet position in the Ministry Department. And the Vice President. From the Vice President. Yeah. Let's not reveal it. We'll tease it. A position in the Ministry Department, everybody. We'll see what, what, what that ends up being. Pin in that. Yes. What could you put? Think of the dumbest fucking thing. So she's getting ready to present on this thing regarding the documents, I guess, and asks her assistant Jill to send Nicholas to her and this is 230. So we're to believe that these documents are like crucially important to a massive project and she's asked this guy to get them done. I can't look at this guy again, can I turn off my screen? Look away. Nice. So weird. Good morning, man. You asked for me? Yes. Please, I can see. I'm barfing from... I can't. There's no... What is it about bad acting? It's on the Earth. It's uncanny. I'm sorry. I forgot the documents you asked for. It'll take just a second. I'll be right back. Not necessary anymore. What do you mean? Oh, do you have a new job? What about assignment for me? I'm so sorry to tell you, but I have to let you go. Your work performance level can't stand up to request a deficiency anymore. What? Are you serious? Yeah, I'm on her side on this, man. Like, what are you talking about? He comes in here. He doesn't have the things she specifically asked for. And yelled about on the phone. Yeah, and it's like, barely vitally important to a massive project and he's like, "Oh, I forgot him." And she's like, "Doesn't matter. Oh, am I doing a new thing? Like, what kind of idiot would be like, "Oh, okay." So that thing was really important. I don't need them. I'll just do a different work. No, dummy. Yeah, you're fired. The only thing that makes sense in the whole movie. I will say it. I thought when I first started watching the first 5-10 minutes of this movie, I was sure that she was like a big firm lawyer. I thought she was supposed to be working at a firm. But she is apparently a civil servant of some kind. We don't know what department or ministry she's in. In my notes, I put legally Scrooge because I thought that's what we were going to get. Like, it's a legally blonde. Like, I was convinced that, okay, she's going to be a lawyer and we just have to wait to find out what it is exactly, but it doesn't make any sense at all. No, because you can't actually-- We never find out. No, we never find out. Because I don't even think she is a public servant at this point. Like she might be-- I think that's probably what they're going for, but it also sounds like they're a contractor maybe with the city. I don't know. It's a million different contradictory things. None of it-- It's also in DC, but her project is to modernize the New York subway system, which is Wi-Fi. Which is a good one. The Wi-Fi paperwork. 2.4 million people. They've got to get the Wi-Fi documents in, or they can't do that. I feel like it'd be more than 2.4 million people. I actually also feel like that's per day. Yeah. Yeah. Department of Transportation, I guess, maybe? Who knows? It's not worth thinking about it. They didn't think about it. Why should we think about it? Yeah. It's the only interesting thing in this movie, though, is trying to untangle the web of what they think any of this is. Yes. It's quite an artifact. Yeah. Yeah. Because before I realized it was a German thing, and even now as a realist German thing, I was really thinking about this as an artifact of what Maga thinks big city people and politics are like. Yeah. Because it's just so completely out of touch with everything. She gives the presentation. Yeah, the pitch. Do you want to hear the pitch? Yes. 340 is wearing. I want to just listen the whole movie. No. Well, no. The whole beginning is pretty interesting. My third one. Yeah. No, I'm not doing that. Okay. It was a pleasure working with you, ma'am. Mary Christos. Yeah. Hey, man. I don't feel sorry for you. You suck. All right. Next going to your gender. Here we go. Gloria Winter. This is the best. This is a pitch. Thank you. In the government. I absolutely discussed. We predict our New York district election results to increase by up to 12%. As soon as we introduce city wide, high speed, wide wide in the subways. What? Today, I received the quote concerning this execution. A project this enormous in size will obviously come at quite some cost. They got quote. A tremendous benefit in terms of political capital gains. A political capital gains might seem rather high. As usual, I have a solution on how to fund this project. When only using 10% of the upcoming AR-23F tax reform for farmers and combining the already existing discretionary funds, all costs will be covered. What? Do you think the farmers are okay with using their money for the subways? They don't need to know. I'm not sure we can keep that a seat. This is the best. This is the best. The approval for the funds. We will keep it a secret until it is installed and as soon as it is, people will be way too happy to complain and stand up for some random farmers. My team will take care of the applications and approvals. Okay. Not bad. That worked. The same guy. It was like, "All right. Sounds good. You've convinced me. I was a skeptic." Apparently, according to IMDb, that person who asked the question is supposed to be a congressman. What? Yeah. I know. This is so confusing. This is all I want to talk about. The rest of me, man. Blah, blah, blah. Love story who cares. This is the best. You know who stands up to give the school system presentation? Yeah. Josh Wesley, the one who said finally 18 to his girlfriend. Oh, no. Really? Oh, no. That's what they decided to. You envision this as a model for other cities, too? Of course. It won't be cheap, but the benefits will outweigh the cost. Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Good job, and research. Thank you. Thank you. I am a congressman. Next presentation. Next presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about the school system in 2030. That's it. That's the joke. The school system in 2030. Yeah. What? From a groomer. Yeah. Cool. Yeah. Yeah. It's like, it's my specialty. I spent a lot of time around schools. So confusing. I don't get it. I don't get it. What's that? I feel like we're going to say that after every scene, it's just it's just that is. Really? But truly in terms of things that are interesting about this, it's this scene. It's amazing. You can't. But because they did, they put work into like some of the words while the discretionary fund and they're like, but none of that is anything. What? Not real. Yeah. You all heard that, right? Yeah. 12% election results. Yeah. No, it's nonsense. The next scene actually is also really something. Yeah. The one where she. Oh, yeah. So we find out that she's been appointed. We're going to find out the job, guys. We're hired. Yeah. It turns out. So remember the job she said yes to side unseen was like, please apply. And I don't know. What does that even mean to have your assistant say yes to a job? Like did she? I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but we're going to find out what that is. This is supposed to look like a press conference, but it's just a meeting. And also, um, the coworkers that are from the previous scene. Hey, Gloria. You got it. You got it. The vice president James Burlington wants to appoint you. The vice president is James Burlington. The vice president is James Burlington. He forgot his name. And that's his name. Yeah. Yeah. Tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. Don't you want to know the new position you're accepting? Nope. I don't really care. I'll be a surprise. All right. Well, have a good night. No. Good morning. It's good to see all of you here. Yeah. It's another office meeting with the same people. But this is vice president James Burlington, so. We all know political views require constant change. And as political views change, our country does the same. While considering the right person to fill this unique administrative position, it has forced us to take a look at the stereotypes that have led this department in the past. And in doing so, we realized positive change is necessary. Our goal is to create diversity in our various departments, starting with the Department of Agriculture today. We feel strongly that by choosing a leader who is on the cutting edge, someone who is not only creative, but also innovative, our nation will soar like never before, nation putting our farmers back in business. I myself have worked with her on several occasions on some very successful projects. It is with great honor and great pleasure to welcome our new Secretary of Agriculture, Gloria Winters, the look on her face, yeah, Secretary of Agriculture. Yeah. Appointed by the vice president, by the vice president, what are you talking about? When I was putting out on my notes on this, I was like, seen like, I was thinking, okay, this is going to be at the White House, right? Like at least, but no, but no, but there is still at her office, he's announcing it to her coworkers and this random congressman, I guess. And then I thought that like, oh, the farmer, she was about to like, stiff them and all the way they were supposed to get back. So I was like, setting up the conflict. I was like, okay, does that ever matter? No, never, never, specifically, literally never, never. So they, she's very unhappy, no, this can't exist. We need a police force that does that, when they see this, they're like, no more can this happen. You can't make things like this. It should not be allowed. I don't know how, but this has to put an end to it. We can't. You're in a conference room and you're announcing that the Secretary of Agriculture, that the vice president, what is not like they got the real vice president? Just have that be the president. What? What are you? What? Question, because they say, Christians only on our movie set and you're like, you can't do that. Can we see them? Yeah, I asked that a minute ago, but yeah, we should apply for a job. I'm like, I'm serious, like, yeah, let's take them down and like have American atheists like prominently on your resume, apply for the job and see what happens. There you go. Or try to get the job first and then mention that you're an atheist and then get fired. Okay. See how it goes. And maybe this is how it works in Germany. The vice president directly appoints people to cabinet positions. It must. And also like a ministry department sound very European. Yes. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. The ministry department. This is the office department. You're looking for the branch department and what ministry department. So they have a conversation about the department of ministry. It's just all the different ministers that are there. That's just in one department, one department. They talk about that the vice president says, you know, we want to make the department of agriculture our flagship department. And that's why we are bypassing Senate confirmation. And I'm just telling you. And appointing this person who has no idea. This is. But what his position is, is that it's not about how we are promoting policy. It's about how we pitch policy. And he says, have you heard of this new social media thing? This movie is from 2023. Yeah. It's so good. Fair. They've been working on it since 2008. So, you know, I did realize though, when we were just listening to that, that whatever it was, he was, this is an attack on DEI is what it is. Like he's talking about how we have to appoint a diverse candidate, right? And if they want to make a movie about how she's completely unqualified because she's a DEI hire, I think they did that accidentally. So at least they get a job on that. Yeah. She gets to work basically, right? She's looking at the most ridiculous video reel I've ever seen in my life. We have to stay with the assignments. Yeah. So, this is the secretary of agriculture. What do you think everybody in your mind, what do you think they say? Well, you got to have a bunch of meetings and coordinate with the deputy secretary in the heads of the whatever and you got to get a broad phone calls. Yeah. A lot of phone call. You probably, well, first you got to get through the assignment hearings. Obviously you got to do that. Right? I mean, you can't do any of this. Really? Before that, well, we'll assume they're using the vacancies act. We're still assuming they're gaming that, so I was adding that aside. What do you think she's doing? Well, she's going to make some videos for social media. Yeah. Not just videos. She's going to make viral videos. Viral, yeah. Oh, yeah. I don't know why anyone makes any other kind. I just think. I just think. Yeah. I just know that you were going to kick that bar's butt out of here, you know? And I'm joined by bar exam prep expert, Heather Varanini. How are you doing today? I'm doing great. How are you doing? Well, that depends. As always, that all depends, Heather. How am I doing? I would like to know how I did on this question. Yeah. And to discover what level of police state the bar exam expects us to be living in on a day to day basis. Oftentimes, the bar exam is like, no, we live in a perfectly reasonable place and then you find that what's happened is that the application of the law has just gotten terrible in this country. So it could be that. Yeah. Remind us what we're talking about here. Well, we have our friend, police officer, Paul. He thinks that defendant Delilah was involved in the sale of some illegal drugs. So he got a vow to arrest warrant. He went to her home to execute it and then he saw the door was open. So he walked in and then he went into her home and then he heard her kind of in the back. He loudly told her to freeze and then he arrested her. So we're trying to figure out if officer, our friend, all I know, I just like this is my sense of humor. We're going to figure out if our neighborhood police officer, Paul probably executed the arrest warrant against against it. Yeah. You just wanted him to ask you so friendly. He just saw he's so friendly and familiar. That's why. And so we were trying to figure out whether or not the execution of the arrest warrant was proper. You right away noticed and identified that this was a criminal procedure question. And also, like you said, criminal procedure questions at their heart are constitutional law ones. But you're right. This is followed squarely into the criminal law and procedure category. Sweet. And the question deals with things within the fourth amendment. That's kind of where they fall. That's where we're at, especially because we know the subtopic here is execution of the arrest warrant. They called the question tells us that is asking us specifically if you properly executed that arrest warrant. And I'll explain a little bit more about why our fourth amendment here tells us that it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And generally unreasonable means warrantless. So that's what we're looking at today. We're going to have to walk through a little bit of how we get through this question in some of the rules that we follow in order to determine whether or not we have this warrantless search or seizure. First we have to look to see whether or not there was government conduct. The government has to be involved in the conduct in order for this to trigger our analysis here. Publicly paid police count. Unsurprisingly, I think to determine government conduct. So our friendly neighborhood police officer, Paul, opening the door to delay those home to execute that arrest warrant does count. Booted thug, Paul, you know, you do your version. I'll do my version. So we have you pay my day today, I'm sorry. All right. So we have the government conduct. We've got that down. So we've got government conduct here. And then so the next thing we look at to see where we're at, if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, that's the kind of phrase that's used to see if that exists. One would think. Is the area searched or the thing seized? Is it protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy into a constitutionally protected place? And here we're really talking about a person having a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home from seizure or arrest by the government. The Lila here, she's being arrested in her own home. And I think, well, I'll just ask you, what do you think? Do you think that it's reasonable to expect privacy? I think so. I mean, the argument could be, well, the door is a jar, but I don't think that flies. I think that's nothing. So yes, I think you have privacy, reasonable expectation of privacy in your bedroom and jackbooted thugs of the state of Trump's state, Trump's police force, that Heather's such a big fan of, they're not allowed to do this, hopefully. You're exactly right, especially as you noted in the bedroom, right? This is the quintessential place where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Well, unless you want us to have a safe sex marriage or an abortion or anything like that. But yeah, sure. No, I could talk about that all day, but yes, you're absolutely right. So we've got that here. We've got government conduct, we've got that reason of expectation of privacy. And then the next thing we've got to talk about is whether the search or the seizure was reasonable. And again, this is about warrantless or otherwise, and we've got to kind of discuss two things here. First, we've got to talk about probable cause. The good thing here is we don't have to talk about this too much because the fact pattern actually tells us in the first sentence that our friendly neighborhood police officer that he had probable cause to believe that Delilah was involved in the sale of illegal drugs. Yeah, it was racial profiling, that's it. And yet Heather is going to sit here and defend this. But I'm actually glad that you said that, and I'll tell you why. So two things. So first and foremost, a lot of times when I'm working with students, this is a place where sometimes I look at the question wrong because it's not uncommon for, I say I work a lot of really socially, just as mine and students. And obviously I am one myself, despite what you might think. But what happens is a lot of times we'll fight the question. And so somebody might think like, oh, I don't really know, but the fact pattern here tells you. Yeah, I at least got that right. I was like, all right, I'll go with that. Exactly. And I'm so glad that you did because you don't want to get hung up here or overthink because if it's telling that to you, it's just it is what it is for the purposes of the question. So we don't have to worry about whether or not that exists because it does. Yeah. So the next thing we have to look at is the warrant requirement, right? There has to be a valid warrant. And so we see in the next line that Paul obtained a valid arrest warrant. So we actually don't have to worry about whether or not the warrant is valid here because it tells us it's the same thing. The fact pattern says that Paul had one. So he had one. That's not an issue. So what happens here is that we kind of we can start to look at some of our answer choices. So I'll look at answer choice D that says, yes, because Paul went to Delilah's home where he had a reasonable belief that Delilah would be there. So the reasonable belief, it actually pertains to the probable cause portion. The reasonable cause requires that the reasonable officer believes that a suspect committed a crime or is planning to do so or that they'll find evidence of a crime if they search the area. So that actually undergirds the probable cause. So it's redundant, you're saying? Not necessarily because it's part of the probable cause, but it's there and it has to exist. The other thing to kind of note here is that a reasonable belief isn't the only thing that the officer needs to get in that door. The reasonable belief by itself isn't going to get the police officer through that door in a constitutionally protected way. He also needs to be enabled by voters who put Trump into office. I hear you. He needs the complacency of the public. Nah, you're right. He needs another. So part of the reason that this answer, it's true that he did have the reasonable belief. He did have that. We know that. That's not enough to actually get him to get in there in a way that gets him to validly execute the war as well. So that's not enough. So D is wrong because it's not enough to really get him through that valid execution. So D is out. There goes my second chance. Okay. Sorry. So C says Paul obtained a valid arrest warrant, which gives him the right to arrest her in her home. So it's true that he does have a valid arrest warrant, but is the valid arrest warrant, is that enough? Is that is that enough to give him the right to arrest her? You started talking about execution of the warrant. You started to talk about this not going to announce rule when you were going through the question. So the valid arrest warrant, we have to have that. Right. And hopefully this will explain. I'll explain this a little bit better. So in order to have an arrest warrant, I'll back up a little bit. You have to have a valid arrest warrant, but before that you have to have a probable cause. And before that you have to have the reasonable belief. So we have these steps to get us there, to get us through the door. And after the valid arrest warrant, we also have to have a valid execution. So although he does have the valid arrest warrant, he has to execute, he has to execute the warrant as well. So C and D to me had the same problem in the sense that they're true, but they're not complete. And they also don't get us to the place that the police officer needs to get at in order to validly execute the warrant sees out. So let's go move to a know because Paul had no consent to enter Delilah's home. So you talked a little bit about the consent and you talked a little bit about you said something about the search warrant. So tell me a little bit about your thinking around the no consent and the need for the search warrant. And I don't know about the search part, when it comes to arresting, yeah, I thought that it would be kind of silly. If the whole question is about he has a valid arrest warrant, can he essentially go into the house to rest? I thought consent wouldn't be a good way to do it because then that would just create it like a Looney Tunes situation or something where Delilah is just like, no, or like a Monty Python sketch, maybe it was more like that. No, wait, I can't come in. No, you can't. And then they build a jail around the house or something, do you like that? Exactly. What is the arrest warrant for? If not to get the officer or the government person through the door, the government through the door, essentially, that's exactly a consent's not needed here. The arrest warrant here acts as the consent essentially. So definitely not A is out because again, that's what the warrants for. So he did a great job eliminating that. So that leaves us with B, our best answer. No, because Paul failed to knock and announce his presence before entering. And you identified what the rule is here. Knock and announce is the way in which officers must execute the warrant before entering a home. They have to knock and announce their presence before executing that warrant. So we did a great job. So yes. I'm. Yay. What you're saying is I'm on a two question streak. Holy crap. Yes. So you mentioned the no knock warrant. So there's some exceptions that allow officers to not knock and announce prior to their entry into the home. We can, as you mentioned, obtain no knock warrants and they did so in those limited instances that you mentioned in which, for example, it's dangerous to the officer or to an identified individual or some other individuals, or if there's an instance in which they're concerned about the destruction of evidence in neither of those situations are available here, right? We're not worried about the destruction of evidence because even here, it just says the fact that it says hide the drugs, hide the drug, we're not worried about her destroying them. We're just worrying about her hiding them. That can be fixed. Finding the fact pattern to suggest that our friendly officer is worried about being harmed by her. If that was the case, there would be some facts here about a weapon such as a gun or a knife and we don't have eye of those situations. So you were right to say here that the knock and ounce does apply and that the no knock warrant is not an issue here. All right. Well, holy crap. I nailed it, everybody. I'm so excited. Yay. All right, the fascist enthusiast over there trying to make this okay, it wasn't okay, everybody. I came to the rescue. You have to knock before you do all this fascism. Yes. And I absolutely was surprised because a lot of the times with criminal law and criminal pro questions, it's not uncommon for the government to come out on top. This is one of the questions I've seen recently in which the government lose it. So surprise. So at least in our hypotheticals, we've created the government can sometimes lose. In reality, what happens is they go, not having gunshots, like so fast, it's like, well, I knocked an announce, but more importantly than any social justice issue, I got a bar exam question, right? Which is the most, this is what we're here to do. Yes. All right. Let's go see if anyone else got this right on blue sky and Reddit and patreon. Why don't we start with Reddit and tell us who are big winner on reddit.com/r/openarxis this week. It's sandwich time again. It feels like it's always sandwich time in a good way in a good way. It's a much time says I'm going with B. I think the Fourth Amendment applies here. And having police creep into your house unannounced seems unreasonable, even with a warrant. Yes. The fact that the door was open and therefore Officer Paul did not force entry gives me pause, but I still think he needs to announce correct. And sandwich time also said, I admit I'm swayed by the answer Thomas gave since he is one to zero by my count, which is undefeated. Okay. All right, and got one reply on blue sky. Hey, everyone, get blue sky, follow openarx and look for that post. I think we need to do a better job of standardizing the T3B post. We'll figure we'll, we'll figure that out. But fortunately, the one person, Sefander, who answers got it right, Sefander says B, you have to get a specific no knock warrant to go in without announcing yourself. If I recall correctly, but you don't need consent to enter the property. If you have a warrant, that's what the warrant is for. Yes. So that nails it. You know, all we needed was one on blue sky when it's going to be that quality of answer. So well done. And then most importantly, our winner on patreon.com slash law. This is where to really get the best quality Heather and I save our top shelf shout outs for patreon.com slash law, just really top quality stuff. A lot of people got this one wrong, actually, a lot of people got it wrong. A lot of people said, aye, I'm seeing all kinds of answers, got a few correct answers on patreon and I'm going to shout out a short and simple one by Dr. Clerk, Thomas nailed it, B is the answer and the question deliberately omits any mention of suppressing evidence because that's not available for a violation of the knock and announce rule. Yes. So what exactly does Dr. Clerk mean by that? Yes. So this is actually good because somebody mentioned this in the red is on Reddit as well. So for a lot of stuff coming up the fourth amendment, when the government has made an error in some ways. So let's say, for example, when they've made some kind of an error, a lot of what happens is the exclusionary rule will kick in, meaning that that evidence that they find that's a result of their air can't come in at trial. That's the normal remedy. However, when there's a violation of the knock and announce rule, the exclusionary rule does not kick in. That's not what happens. They violate this rule and they have a valid warrant, there's no remedy unless state law provides one. Wow. That doesn't seem great. Right. But okay. Well, Dr. Clerk nailed it when they said that I nailed it, even though they nailed it even better. Thank you so much to our winners. You did amazing. Love in the participation. Like I said, we'll get the we'll get the blue sky post standardized. Okay, I've thoughts on that, but I think that's what's happening there and I'll make sure to fix that so we get more participation there. That Reddit tons of participation on Reddit and Patreon and that lone blue sky winner got extra love for being the only answer and a correct one. So with that, congratulations out of the way. It's time to take on another question, another opportunity for people to play along, another opportunity for me to either embarrass myself or perhaps continue my improbable streak of two questions. So after this break, we'll have question 53. This just in hot off the bench press. Planet Fitness has added new strength equipment. Save $28 or more when you join today and you can be one of the first to try it out. We're raising the bar with new benches and our new hacks got will have you actually looking forward to leg day. Plus, we're still wrapping all of the best in class equipment we've always had with most clubs open 24 hours so you can work out your way on your time. So let's do this. Join Planet Fitness today and save $28 or more. Just $1 down, $15 a month, cancel anytime, deal ends January 10th. See home club for details. All right, Heather, lay it on me. Jenny sued Dan for the broken leg she sustained when Dan's truck hit her while she was crossing the street. Jenny testified that she was walking across the street in the crosswalk with the green light when she was hit. Dan argues that Jenny was crossing against the red light and that he was unable to stop his truck in time to prevent the accident to support her assertion. Jenny called the owner of a cafe on the corner where the accident occurred who testified. Don't be don't be hearsay or some shit. God damn it. That quote, I saw Jenny cross the street for five years and she has never walked against the red light. Interesting. Okay. The cafe owner's testimony should be a excluded unless the owner actually saw Jenny crossing the street on the day of the accident be excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. See admitted because it is relevant as to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion or D admitted to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely. Boy, evidence. Okay. So this is evidence, I think going to go with that. I believe that's what this is. Even though it started sort of tortsy when Jenny is suing Dan, which seems perhaps tortsy, but I think we're solidly in evidence here. So this is testimony. So this is the dispute, the factual dispute is did this person cross on a red light or on a green light, essentially? And Jenny wants to have someone, the owner of a cafe who's on the corner where the accident occurred. Okay. So that's like, you know, that's kind of relevant there. The testimony has happened. I normally, I feel like these questions are like, should the judge allow this person, but like, I guess this already happened. I don't think that changes it because I think it's like, they testify and then you could object or something and then it might be excluded. But anyway, the owner testifies. I saw Jenny cross the street for five years and she has never walked against the red light. So should that testimony be excluded or admitted? Those are the, those are the questions we've got to excluded and to admitted. So before looking at those, I think this is a tricky one that's hard to remember, which is obviously why it's a friggin bar question. I think when you are testifying, okay, I know criminally there's usually a problem with like, we can't just testify that this guy sucks. Like we can't just be like, yeah, any kick to puppy and he did unrelated. So like usually don't want to do that. But in the back of my mind, there's something like character evidence I feel like is a thing. And I think that, and actually, now I'm thinking about it in a civil context, I think it's a little different. And I think there's a difference between positive and negative. So I think that like, it's one thing to be like, okay, that guy is just crying me. He's bad. We're going to make you think he's bad. I think it's, it's different when the person is saying here's some positive character evidence. But now at first, is this character evidence? I don't, I'm not entirely sure. It's sort of like a pattern, maybe establishing a pattern. Now I'm going to try to think, I'm going to try to take the classic OA approach from all these years and be like, rationally speaking, should it be relevant, which is not an indication that it will be, but like, I feel like that's what I need to not lose sight of that when it comes to these things because the law is usually the rules anyway on this stuff. It's trying to, what it's trying to accomplish is, is this good evidence, does it get the jury closer to the truth kind of thing, I think. So if someone comes in and wants to say this person has always crossed on the correct thing, it's the kind of thing that seems like it should be evidence because it gives the other side the chance to cross examine and say like, really, tell me a time you remember? I don't know, it gives, gives a chance for the other side to poke holes in it. The only other thing is, logically speaking, it is an induction problem. It doesn't mean that on this occasion, something different didn't happen. You know, it doesn't mean that like, oh well, but this time she was, I don't know, running late for something. So just purely prima facia, boy, I'm not sure. I think in a civil context to support a kind of a positive assertion and not a criminal context where you're trying to say this guy's always bad because that's not allowed. I think in a civil, I'm leaning toward this might be admitted. Okay, having said that, let's go through the specific answers, see if anything calls out to me. A is excluded unless the owner actually saw Jenny crossing the street on the day of the accident. Okay, so that would mean the only testimony that's allowed along these lines is specific to the event and you don't get to say, no, but this is the pattern. This is how this person normally acted. It's plausible. I kind of think that's a little strict. I don't know. I feel like there's testimony. I feel like character evidence is a thing. I feel like there tends to be testimony that's about, you know, because what if no one saw? I don't know. I mean, so I'm not, I don't have a strong yes or no on a so I'm going to leave it alive for now. B excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. Well, that's interesting because it, it almost sounded like what I think is true, but it actually sounded like maybe a misstatement. It sounds like kind of an inverted statement of what I was expecting. Like I'm wondering if this is one of those like misstatements of the law that is close enough to trick me. Evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. It doesn't sound right. Evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove like it sounds close what I think it would be trying to say is evidence of someone's character does not prove that they did it on this particular occasion. But the way it's talking, it's like, no evidence of specific instances of conduct are not admissible. Oh, here's the thing. I got to check real quick. Sometimes stupidly, this can turn and I mean that stupidly as in it's a tricky. This can turn on like what they're trying to admit it for. Okay, does it tell us? It says to support Jenny's assertion that she was walking across the street when it was a green light for her. So it's to support that. So it's to say to support this, I'm going to have someone testify who's seen me do this a million times. It seems like that's got to be admit like I would lean toward admissible. And I think be be sounds like honestly a little bit word salad unless I'm wrong. It sounds like something in there is worded wrong. It doesn't seem quite like the rule I'm thinking of excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. That just can't be right. I don't, I don't know. That can't be right. I think something's wrong there. So I think I'm no on be. So if I were to choose excluded, I think I lean toward a because a is just in the world of nope, you're only allowed to have people testify about the specific incident. You're not allowed to have anyone say, hey, they always do this, which again, in a civil context, when you're not talking about criminality or kind of, it just, it seems like it should be an admitted answer. So let's go to the admitted one C and D see admitted because it is relevant as to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion relevant. Okay. See is strong. I think that's kind of where I've been leaning like, yeah, it doesn't prove anything. But like you get to say, hey, no, I mean, I always do this. Here's someone who can say I always do this. And that's part of the evidence. The other side gets to dispute it. They get to cross examine, but that gets to be part of the equation or D admitted to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely. Now that's interesting. What's the distinction there? So the difference between C and D, I think is character evidence versus that very question of does this prove or disprove this specific instance? And if I'm being honest, I don't totally know which one of those is okay. On one hand, it seems like C is the way more relevant answer. It's like, no, it's, it's, it's said in the questions to support her assertion. And so C admitted because is relevant as to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion seems reasonable. But if the rule is that like, oh, actually you can't do that because of the B thing. And by that, I mean, the gobbledygook that I think is that answer that you're not allowed to kind of do evidence that way, then D is like, it's admitted to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely that that would mean we're admitting this as character evidence, which I think usually is okay, especially if it's you're doing it for yourself. Like, for my memory, you're not allowed to try to gather negative character evidence about the other person, but you are allowed to be like, here's positive character evidence about me. And this is civil as well. So I almost think, I almost think you do either of those things. But gosh, I'm gonna have to figure out what's the most, I have a lot of logical possibilities to go through in my mind. I gotta figure this out. One thing that I don't like is because the question says to support her assertion, Jenny called the owner of a cafe and then D says admitted to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely. That's not a one to one, you know, like I think that worries me a little because I think you would need to have called them to bolster her character in that direct way, in that way of acting safely rather than, hey, I'm saying I crossed when it was green, I'm gonna call someone to support to quote, support my assertion, and they're doing a vague character thing. Man, I'm a little concerned about that mismatch. I'm revisiting A and B and now I'm weirdly leaning more toward B of the two. I'm not sure I'm going with A or B, but like A's answer is excluded unless the owner actually saw Jenny crossing the street on the day of the accident. And that's actually really weird because the testimony is I saw Jenny cross the street for five years and she has never walked against the red light. It would be weird to say that statement is admissible if the owner also saw Jenny cross the street on that. You know what I mean? Like that would be that would be weird. I think the rule should be either you're allowed to bring this in or not based on the fact that it's like pattern in practice. I don't know if that's the correct term, but like, I feel like that's the question and it shouldn't be the witness can testify, I quote, I saw Jenny cross the street for five years and she's never walked against the red light. Only if that witness also saw on that particular occasion. So I think now that I look at it, A seems totally wrong because yeah, that wouldn't really make sense. Like you'd either have the person testify about what they saw or not. And this is sort of a mismatch, I think. So I'm eliminating a based on that. I think B now is a little bit more plausible because evidence of specific instances. So B was excluded because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion. That sounds so close to something that's real and maybe it is, but I'm just misremembering. I think my problem is this should just say excluded because character evidence is not admissible or does not prove conformity with character on a particular occasion. Like it should just be that not like evidence of specific instances of conduct. That's a weird thing, it doesn't make any sense. Gosh, so I think B could be right, but I'm so hesitant to pick it. So that leans me toward a C or D, which is admitted in either case and I'd have to pick my best one. Okay, I think I'm just going to go with C. I think that there's a possibility of a trick weird D being right that the way you get this in is based on it being character evidence and not because it's relevant to that particular occasion. But I think absent any like strong memory, I think I'm forced to just approach this from the standpoint that like we're in a civil context. It's not a criminal thing where we're proving a person is always evil. This is a civil context where someone is trying to say, hey, I always do this one thing. Here's someone who's seen me always do this one thing. That should be relevant at the very least. It's got to be relevant to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion. I could see it being a sneaky answer D, but I think I'm between B and C and I'm going with C. That's landed. I think there's a possibility B is right. And I'm just getting fixated on language that doesn't make sense to me. So I think I think B will be my second chance D is my like super trick, third chance. But that doesn't, that's nothing. So I'm going with C final answer. All right. If you'd like to play along, locate that blue sky post step one, go to blue sky, follow open arms, follow a serious pod, follow whatever Heather's one is. What is your one? It's Professor Varinini, Professor Varinini, and it's a V with a as in Victor. Just to clear bikes. I think sometimes people think I'm using a B. Oh, gotcha. Yeah. Follow all of that. But look for that post from the open arms blue sky with a T three B in it and quote that and give your answer in your quote scheme. Also Reddit.com slash our slash open arcs. That's a great place to go to track your answers. That's probably where most people go. It's a cool place to play. And the biggest and best shout out, of course, will be as always from patreon.com slash law on the post for this episode. Those are the places to play. Boy, I really am looking forward to figuring out what's going on with this one. I don't know. I'm I'm at a loss. Will I continue the streak? Will I not? We'll find out next week. I'm excited. I can't wait. All right. Well, it's been real. Heather. Veronine. It's been very great. Heather. Veronini. Looking forward to next week. We do. Thank you for being afraid. Oh, oh, yeah. Travel down the road. We're back. Hey. So we started from the bottom that we hand. And now it's time to thank our patrons at patreon.com slash law. And we'll start with our new patrons. Thank you so much to Robert Cook, Stephanie Snyder, Dan, these and Boston Smith. Ah, what a welcome name, Boston Smith. It's like you and Matt combined. Oh, yeah, it is. Thank you to those new patrons for signing up. We hope you enjoy the perks, the no ads and maybe a lot of movies, depending on what level you're at. And now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all time greats. We give them a shout out each and every week unless that week happens to be Christmas, then we took a break, but it's time for the shout out. Why don't you go first? All right, James H, vehicular man's laughter, telling you to drive over to dub T W W and put it in park for the deepest of dives and double of doozies. I went back to doing names just so I could hear you say how the sausage is made at the Michael Cohen factory again. I don't think I said that. And now you get to hear me say yeah, that was that yeah, that was gavel gavel. I think, right? Yeah, I hate the Supreme Crunch wrap. Oh, man, I'm jealous. I know. I want to now. Congrats on your new job, Michelle. I'm so proud. Yeah. Yeah, we are too. It is aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Oh, man. That's the hardest I've left in a long time. Is she talking about me? It's in all caps. I hope I communicated that as part of that sex and gender are different things. Something my new home state protects by law. Cool. Yeah. Apprentice of adventure on frozen caveman lawyer still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system. Cavalry, Nick Fish, the world's most reluctant ray of sunshine, a negative phenomenon, quick update. He seconds back already and is now 24 away. It might be 23 because I think he's scored today. Yesterday? Or yesterday. Yeah. That's crazy. Crazy. Two in a row. Well, one was the empty net, but you know, they all count. They all count. Yeah. And then the next one was a really nice one timer. I mean, he's the best girl score of all time. It's just just what it is. You got a fight for your right to ex parte. Jay Sank to pose the CEO in your head, ask less of yourself and others. Test ease interpreter. Oh, great. And I have to go back to changing my name every month, but I don't think you have. Yeah, you should or ET. We had that one. Yeah. Yeah. Thomas Freeman, Cajun Killa, fraud, fishy, hates everything and Chris Simpson. I was always a soft spot in my heart for frad fishy. It's everything. It's so stupid. Love the extra episode. Let's check out the Korean cryptography conference at cryptography.lgbt. Liberals on guns to support root cause mitigation, not ineffective gun control, not a lawyer, but I play one in court. I give up on funny names. I'm just Leo G for now. This isn't a Patreon name and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think legal legal is so handsome. Mark Schultz, the Cincinnati kid, blah, blah, blah, blah podcast. Philly basement bar is back open and isn't taking the shit lying down. Yeah. Edgy veggie, hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report elect Thomas Smith, president, American honky talk bar association, Baltic Kate, Philip Kaiser, oh, this one's all they snuck in a lot by not putting any spaces ready to Thomas and Lydia Heather and Matt and T3BE, the bar exam chat. May your crunch reps be stern, but perfectly clear. Mary X miss to all and a happy new year. Wow. Good. All in. Fantastic. Well done. That might be the winner. It's not the funniest, but it's, but it is the most. And no, it's very nice. I appreciate it. The 501st and rebel Legion want you cosplayers doing good, a string of unpronounceable characters. Milo Meatsong is on to the post conviction process. Now that a certain petition was denied, Malaika Chandler, Malcolm, the dragon, the precious variant, big easy blasphemy rondadork.com, Fred, our growthiest, Chris wall trip, Mitchell and classic lip tart on top, but not after this month. I'm telling you in 2025, there will be a new top patron, unless something drastically changes, but I don't think it will. So that'll be a day. That'll be interesting. It'll be January six. That'll be a takeover. But I suppose extra special shout out to classic lip tart for their, for being at the top for so long. Thank you so much top patrons. You're the best. I hope you enjoyed this year. I don't know. I hope you. I hope you enjoyed. Yeah. Yeah. The latter half of the year, particularly. It's been really nice being back with you all. Yeah. Yeah. You were never on the show. No, definitely check out the great stuff on where there's woke and serious and queers only. And man, gavel gavel. There's a lot of stuff to listen to right now. If you're somehow at a shortage right now, check out those other places. And if you're a fan of my voice, gavel gavel is the place to be. Yeah. All right. Thank you seriously for a great 2024. We're so glad to have the show back and hope 2025 can be even better. Happy New Year. Many happy returns and we're kissing all of you. Cheers. This podcast is a production of opening arguments media LLC All Rights Reserve. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [BLANK_AUDIO]
