Laying Down the Law: Accountant Edition

Attention: This is a machine-generated transcript. As such, there may be spelling, grammar, and accuracy errors throughout. Thank you for your understanding!

Speaker1: [00:00:03] From the beyond unreasonable reasonable doubt studios. In association with fighter production.

[00:00:11] It's lay down the law.

Speaker1: [00:00:19] With your host.

Speaker2: [00:00:21] Billy the Clerk.

Speaker3: [00:00:22] Hey, that's me.

Speaker1: [00:00:23] Yeah, that's right, Billy. That's you. Featuring Doug Morrissey, Jack Moss, Hammer, Gary Pia and Pia Smith. Only a mad man would dare to bring these people together to build a world of law and order only to tear it apart with laughter. That madman is attorney Billy Dee Clarke. The result is a podcast blasted to the farthest reaches of the Internet. That podcast is this one, and it starts right now.

Speaker3: [00:00:55] Welcome to Laying Down the Law, the only law in comedy podcast on the Internet that offers rainbow sprinkles for free with every episode not available in all areas. My first guest today is a returning guest who needs no introduction. Literally, last time we really overdid it. His bio was the longest ever heard on this podcast and will not be repeated in full here. So Second City Drowsy Chaperon, Al Gore, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Young Sheldon, Big Bang Theory, the Middle Mike and Molly Cohn and Jimmy Kimmel Live and 50% of the Williamson Playboys, a law and comedy know musical comedy duo. He's all that and much.

Speaker2: [00:01:30] Much, much.

Speaker3: [00:01:31] More. He is Doug Morrissey.

Speaker2: [00:01:34] Hello, everybody.

Speaker3: [00:01:36] Next, she's a multiple time returning guest on this podcast, a brilliant impersonator of our 45th president, a costume designer with five stars on Poshmark. She's a comic improviser actor. She's been with the Upright Citizens Brigade, Second City, Hollywood, and she can be seen on American Gangster Trap queens. Please welcome the Multihyphenate talent, the hilarious Pia Smith.

Speaker4: [00:02:01] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the warm welcome. Wonderful to be back.

Speaker3: [00:02:05] Next, he's a financial planner and the owner of Mission Street Wealth Financial Planning. But not just that. He's also acted in plays, conducted pit orchestras, sung in rock bands, played the bass in a Beatles tribute band. Although he's not a member of the actual Beatles, he served on nonprofit boards, including the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Committee, and he's serving his third term as the elected city treasurer of South Pasadena, California. His motto is Life is too short to live on only one side of your brain. And he is Gary Pia.

Speaker2: [00:02:38] Hi. I'm the player to be named later.

Speaker3: [00:02:40] Finally, he's an actor and performer in Toronto. For the last 30 years, he's written, taught and acted with the Second City, Toronto, Second City, Los Angeles, the Bad Dog Theater, Toronto Theater sports, Humber College. And he currently teaches sketch writing, musical parody and improvization for the Toronto Film School. He's appeared in the improvised soap opera Train 48 and the improvised movie Man of the Year. His motto is, I really love improv.

Speaker2: [00:03:06] He is Jack Hammer. Hey, everybody. Hey.

Speaker3: [00:03:11] Well, welcome to the show. This is a Lorne Improv podcast. For those of you listening on earmark for the first time. Some of you already know the drill, but what we do is we take interesting legal cases and we have some of the world's greatest improvisers come and get inspired by the law and bring their comedy. That's it's a law and comedy podcast. All right. Well, I hope you all enjoy that product and or service, whatever it is. I'm sure it's a great sponsor and I buy a lot of whatever it is. Today's case is Manning versus Grimsley. This is from the First Circuit, which is the federal appellate court. The year is 1981. This is an action involving the law of Massachusetts. A quick side note here. When you're in federal court, there is, you know, federal law and state law. And there are two ways you get into federal court. One is called diversity jurisdiction. And it's not a diversity in the sense that we generally understand it. Diversity means diversity of citizenship, meaning you are two different states. So if it's a lawsuit between people who live in Nevada and California or live in Toronto, in Los Angeles, then it would be a diversity case. So citizens of a foreign country can sue in the courts of the United States and can be sued in the courts of the United States. They can't be sued in the state courts. So that's a little bit of federal constitutional procedural law. So this is a diversity action in which the law that applies is the law of the state of Massachusetts. The plaintiff. Claims that as a spectator at a baseball game, he was injured by a ball thrown by the pitcher. He sued for battery and negligence to recover damages from the pitcher and his employer. All right. I'm going to pause and I'm going to go back because Gary Pia just joined us. Hello, Gary. Pia.

Speaker2: [00:05:21] Hi, everybody. I'm the player to be named later.

Speaker3: [00:05:28] I'm just going to keep this exactly as exactly as it is. You. We we we went ahead and got started because one thing I am is prompt. I've never been late for a meeting. And if you believe that. Oh, we're recording on April 1st, by the way.

Speaker2: [00:05:48] Yeah.

Speaker3: [00:05:48] I've also become a Republican. Icecaps are not melting, I believe. Let's see what else. I believe that Donald Trump is the legitimate and rightful president of the United States. Yeah. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, those of you who are listening at home, we've been joined by a moneyman. The man with the plan, Mr. Mission Street Wealth, Garry Pierre himself.

Speaker2: [00:06:21] Thank you, Billy, to be here.

Speaker3: [00:06:23] Thanks for coming.

Speaker2: [00:06:24] So I was making change, and that's what delayed me. So sorry about the tardy entrance.

Speaker3: [00:06:30] It's no problem. No problem. I like the bank of change. Actually, the Bank of change is one of my favorite banks. I used to bank there for years. Basically, if you go in, you know, you can get you can take $100 bill and they'll give you 100 ones, 20 fives for five, $20 bills, you know.

Speaker2: [00:06:47] 25 for dollars. Yes. They can do that to.

Speaker3: [00:06:50] 25 $4 bills. Yeah. Oh those are good. Whatever you want. And you know, that's all they do is just make change.

Speaker2: [00:06:59] Make the change you want to be.

Speaker3: [00:07:01] Yeah, exactly. So the question here is whether there was a there was a trial and the court said that the defendants couldn't be sued for battery. Now, battery is an intentional tort, meaning you hit somebody not necessarily with a bat, although this is a baseball case, battery just means a touching that is not consensual. So you can you know, the old law school trope is you could touch somebody with a feather. It's a battery. If it's not consensual, it doesn't have to be particularly hard here. It was with a baseball thrown by a major league pitcher. So it was. Probably thrown pretty hard.

Speaker2: [00:07:47] 80 miles an hour at least. At least.

Speaker3: [00:07:51] At least if it was the bomb, if it was the Baltimore Orioles, it was probably maybe even 85. So so the date was September 16th, 1975, in a professional baseball game at Fenway Park in Boston between the defendant, the Baltimore Baseball Club Inc, also known as the Baltimore Orioles and the Boston Red Sox. The defendant, Ross Grimsley, was a pitcher employed by the Baltimore Club. Some spectators, including the plaintiff, were seated behind a wire mesh fence. Fence in bleachers located in right field. Grimsley, who was warming up during the first three innings of the game, have been warming up, throwing a ball and the pitcher's mound on the plate to a bullpen located near those right field bleachers. The spectators had continuously heckled Grimsley. On several occasions. Following the heckling heckling, Grimsley looked at the hecklers, not just into the stands. He looked directly at the hecklers, apparently Manning being one of the hecklers. At the end of the third inning of the game, Grimsley, after his catcher had left the catching position and was walking over to the bench, faced the bleachers and wound up or stretched as though to pitch in the direction of the plate toward which he had been throwing the ball. But the ball traveled from his hand at more than 80 miles an hour at an angle of 90 degrees from the path from the pitcher's mound to the plate and directly to the hecklers in the bleachers. It went through the wire mesh fence and hit the plaintiff.

Speaker4: [00:09:28] Wow.

Speaker3: [00:09:29] Yeah. So he got beaned. The court of appeals said we unlike the district judge, we believe that he was an expert. And he looked at the hecklers and he threw the ball directly at them. So we believe he intended to throw the ball at them. He intended to cause them the fear of being hit and to respond to the conduct because it was affecting his ability to warm up for the game. So this evidence was enough to conclude that he was guilty of a batter. Oh, gee. Guilty. Yeah, liable. But that's not the reason why we're reading this case. We don't really, really care about Grimsley and throwing the ball at the hecklers because this is a business law episode intended for continuing education for CPAs on the earmark app. Thanks to my good friend Blake Oliver, who is hosting us on this app. We need to, in order for the accountants to get one hour of continuing education credits, we need 36.2 minutes of genuine legal content in a business law field. Battery. Being a tort or a harm is not necessarily business law. What is business law is the question of whether the Baltimore Orioles are liable for this intentional tort of their pitcher. Now, that's a question that CPAs could encounter in their line of work in a lot of different ways. I don't know how many times I've been balancing the books of my client and they come to me and they say, Can we be liable for this intentional tort of our employee? I say, Well, the answer is it depends. And everything after it depends costs to $500 an hour.

Speaker4: [00:11:08] How many hours?

Speaker3: [00:11:09] It depends.

Speaker2: [00:11:11] Oh, charging.

Speaker5: [00:11:13] Costs $500.

Speaker3: [00:11:15] A month.

Speaker2: [00:11:17] Again, ask again. Let's go.

Speaker3: [00:11:18] 4000 here. The Court of Appeal, the First Circuit, was asked to decide whether the judge had properly dismissed the case as against the Baltimore Orioles. The case had been dismissed as to the pitcher in the Baltimore Orioles because the trial judge had believed that it wasn't a battery. But the secondary reason is that there's a concept called vicarious liability or Respondeat superior, which is Latin for the bosses responsible. And when an employee commits an act within the scope of his or her employment, then the employer can be responsible, financially responsible to the plaintiff for the injuries or harms. So, for example, let's say you're a professional driver and you run over somebody in a crosswalk while you are doing that professional driving, then your employer could be responsible for the the damages to the person who got run over in the crosswalk. Because you're in the scope of employment, you're a professional driver. So the question here is whether the Orioles could be responsible for the financial harm caused by Grimsley when he threw the ball at Manning. Or whether that was outside the scope of employment so far. Do you have any questions?

Speaker4: [00:12:37] You're very quiet. Oh, my God.

Speaker3: [00:12:38] Times Okay, well, let's stop for questions because you are so polite. Usually I get interrupted.

Speaker2: [00:12:45] I know, right?

Speaker3: [00:12:46] We're all you're being so polite.

Speaker4: [00:12:47] And I think it's because it's so very technical and it feels almost kind of straightforward. But my question is, you keep using this term can be, well, you know, he can be can you be responsible? And I'm thinking, well, of course you can be so. And then, of course, here comes the depends and the hours of billing for you shipping. But I guess I'm kind of like. In every job I've had, there are codes of conduct where it's like, if I do certain things, I'm fired. So I'm just like, isn't throwing intentionally throwing a ball and harming someone? Isn't that just like, how is that their responsibility when I'm sure. He's not allowed to do that.

Speaker3: [00:13:35] Well, as we now I mean, that's a good question. The players contracts are heavily negotiated.

Speaker2: [00:13:41] But it's not a baseball question. Pitchers have been throwing baseballs at other humans since they started really playing the game.

Speaker4: [00:13:50] Casey, I didn't know about that.

Speaker2: [00:13:52] The brushback pitch, the chin music. Oh, that's all part of the base to ball.

Speaker5: [00:13:58] But I guess you could say in that the players involved have agreed that that's part of the game. These hecklers in the stands have not never experienced that before. Right.

Speaker2: [00:14:09] Is that usual? I'm wondering about the Red Sox liability for having a faulty fence surrounding the bullpen.

Speaker3: [00:14:16] Now, you think like a plaintiff's lawyer? That's what I'm saying. You think like a plaintiff's lawyer. There's a lot of people you could sue. There are a whole.

Speaker2: [00:14:23] Host of everybody knows that Jason Grimsley couldn't hit water if he threw it out of baseball, out of a canoe. Okay.

Speaker3: [00:14:33] Wow. It sounds like you were maybe sitting in the stands of Fenway Park once or twice. I'm not familiar with it. I'm not familiar with Grimsley as a player. Seeing is how I pay no attention to baseball whatsoever.

Speaker2: [00:14:46] I know nothing to know about. I was going to say, I know nothing of this thing you call baseball. That's my sport. What is? Did you explain the rules?

Speaker3: [00:14:56] What is this, baseball?

Speaker2: [00:14:58] I am Canadian. If it is not on ice, I do not.

Speaker3: [00:15:01] If there's no. Okay, Well, baseball is like this. Imagine that. That the. That the sticks. The hockey sticks are straight. They don't have a bend. And instead of ice, there's grass instead of a puck. There's a ball in in. And don't they have like, penalty shots in in a way. There's a. Okay. So, so so it's like a penalty shot and but the goalie is supposed to hit the penalty shot as far as he can down the ice, which we call grass. And it's like on a cross. Oh, you know, it is it is not like our.

Speaker2: [00:15:38] Lacrosse at all. It's not nothing.

Speaker3: [00:15:42] Like lacrosse, although the ball is approximately the same.

Speaker5: [00:15:45] Size. And some of the letters are similar when you spell it.

Speaker3: [00:15:48] Yeah, there's there's an L in in.

Speaker2: [00:15:51] Both, but it's complicated. Further, baseball doesn't have a clock. Who knows when it came. Oh.

Speaker4: [00:15:59] Really?

Speaker2: [00:16:00] See, that is something I didn't legitimately know.

Speaker4: [00:16:03] Baseball really can just go on forever.

Speaker2: [00:16:05] It has no clock. You play the game until somebody wins. This is.

Speaker4: [00:16:11] So informative. Wow.

Speaker5: [00:16:15] You know, I kind of have to sort of agree with Gary a little bit. I think the fence is pivotal here. It's a faulty fence. Mm hmm. And the pitcher must have thought that the ball was going to hit the fence and.

Speaker2: [00:16:29] Stop a stadium that's liable.

Speaker5: [00:16:31] Yeah, I think it's the fence manufacturer. Why weren't they brought into it?

Speaker3: [00:16:35] You know, it's the manufacturer.

Speaker4: [00:16:37] The manufacturer is going to manufacture the fence as as requested or required. Right. So if they didn't request a fence, that would. Right, right, right.

Speaker5: [00:16:47] Unless they're using substandard materials.

Speaker3: [00:16:50] Right. Like, if I'm Manning's lawyer, I'm going to be looking at I'm going to be looking at the Red Sox.

Speaker2: [00:16:55] I'm going to be looking at the.

Speaker3: [00:16:56] Upper management, their maintenance crews, the products that they use to design the bullpen fence because it's completely expected. If I'm. If I'm.

Speaker4: [00:17:08] The manufacturer.

Speaker2: [00:17:09] The ball is.

Speaker3: [00:17:10] Yeah, it's just they make these baseballs too hard these days. Just go right through wire mesh fences.

Speaker2: [00:17:15] I think we need to go after Budweiser because that fan was liquored up and didn't know what he was saying. Harassing a major League Baseball pitcher. Those people have feelings.

Speaker4: [00:17:27] The bartender who served him the drinks.

Speaker3: [00:17:30] Well, here's another thing. I mean, it was on the first three innings of the ballgame. I mean.

Speaker2: [00:17:34] He was only kidding. We're talking about Boston fans, though. Yeah, I mean, but this is the.

Speaker3: [00:17:39] Third inning.

Speaker2: [00:17:40] After the third.

Speaker4: [00:17:41] Oh, God. Okay, wait, hold on. Are the cameras in the parking lot working? Because wasn't he getting liquor? Wasn't he pre gaming? He had that thing called when you let the when he was tailgating and he came into the stadium inebriated. So it's not anyone's fault but his baseball.

Speaker2: [00:18:02] Yeah, exactly. And did he make fun of the fun of the pitcher's wife's appearance? That might have been it. He might have made fun of the pitcher twice appearance.

Speaker3: [00:18:10] I'm quite sure that happened.

Speaker2: [00:18:12] He was talking about his mother. Yeah.

Speaker3: [00:18:16] Yeah. The other thing, too, you know, I'm interested in is that there's usually, you know, on the back of a ticket or I mean, these days it's your ticket online. It's, you know, waiver of liability, assumption of risk that, you know, you walk into a ballpark. And if you get you know, you assume you might get hit by a baseball. And I think what actually takes it outside of that is that it's intentionally throwing the ball at a spectator might take you out of the assumption of risk because it's because, again, it's not negligence that we're talking about. It's an intentional tort, intentional battery. Being intentional like Grimsley intended to hit this guy.

Speaker2: [00:19:00] Could have been just a really good curve ball.

Speaker3: [00:19:02] Yeah, exactly.

Speaker2: [00:19:04] Aiming at the plate and it just went 90 degrees the other direction. Yeah.

Speaker3: [00:19:07] I think one of the interesting facts, too, is the fact that he sort of pretended like he was going to throw a pitch after the catcher had left.

Speaker5: [00:19:14] And then, you know, a lot of people might say that's just typical Oriole pitching.

Speaker2: [00:19:20] Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker4: [00:19:21] I don't know anything about baseball, but that's funny. Yeah. Hold on. How about this, though? He was reacting. It was an emotional response to their intentional infliction of emotional distress. He was being heckled.

Speaker3: [00:19:37] So interesting. Yeah.

Speaker5: [00:19:39] So I think they all should have just got counseling.

Speaker3: [00:19:41] Mm hmm. Well, here's an interesting thing about intentional infliction of emotional distress, is that it is typically required under most states law that there be a physical injury. In order to get liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because you can imagine why if everybody who got their feelings hurt could file a lawsuit because they had emotional distress inflicted upon them, the courts would be even more backed up than they are. So we think.

Speaker4: [00:20:13] We're already there.

Speaker3: [00:20:14] Yeah, we're already there. But we'd be ten times there if you could sue for hurt feelings. So you only get to sue for hurt feelings if you have hurt body. Although, again, as I said, a battery could just be, you know, the lightest touch in the world. So I would have I'm not sure that he sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but if he was a California plaintiff, he would most certainly have said battery plus i. I I'd. Ied intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Speaker5: [00:20:44] Really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it like a number of different people are named in lawsuits just in case the first person didn't have enough liability to cover the amount of money that you're going after. So you keep going after sort of bigger and bigger entities to make sure that you get your cash reward.

Speaker3: [00:21:02] Well, that's directly on the nose of one of the underlying policy issues in this case, right, is that Grimsley may not have had that much money, but the Baltimore Ball Club had plenty, plus probably had a lot of insurance. And so if Manning wants to get or Manning's lawyer wants to get a maximum recovery, you're going to want maximum number of defendants. And so Grimsley may have, you know, given his career was probably over by 1981. This happened in 1975. He may not have had that much money. And, you know, professional ballplayers are not known for their thrift and prudence. It's very possible that he he didn't have a lot of money. And so the plaintiff really needed the ball club to be to be a defendant, because they would be the deeper pockets. So. So as a practical matter, yes, when you're the plaintiff, you typically want plenty of defendants for the economic reason. You want one defendant who is going to be viable. And if both are liable, you need one that's viable. And the other reason is that they might not all be liable. So, you know, if he had just sued the club and not the pitcher, he may not have had liability. But this but so suing the getting the employer in there gives you multiple avenues of recovery.

Speaker4: [00:22:29] So what did what was it? What were his injuries? What? Where did he get it? Where did he get.

Speaker3: [00:22:34] Well, I like to tell my all my guests who always want to know what actually happened and how bad was somebody hurt that we're lawyers so we don't really care how bad you got to hurt.

Speaker2: [00:22:45] Yeah.

Speaker3: [00:22:46] It's not the legal doctrine that's at issue here. We can assume it's we can assume it's serious enough that he was able to find a lawyer to sue for him, probably on a contingency. But we just.

Speaker4: [00:22:58] I mean, not necessarily I would sue even if, you know, just knocked a couple of braids out of my head. You know what I mean? Like.

Speaker3: [00:23:05] I mean, you you have then you have more money than most people because, you know, as I mentioned, lawyers are not cheap. Right, Right, right. So, you know, they don't take lawyers, don't take cases on contingency unless you have, you know, liability is basically assured. The damages are significant and the defendant is able to pay. Those are the I often tell my.

Speaker4: [00:23:30] Client don't know. We really don't know what his injuries were. I get I know.

Speaker3: [00:23:34] I mean, I really don't I really don't know because it's not in the textbook and it may have been in the case textbook is usually a bridge somewhat. But the the truthful answer is that we don't care. I guess we we don't we don't know. I mean, presumably it was it was it was bad enough. But but, you know, in this case, there could be a pretty significant emotional distress injuries that he was fearful of the ball coming to hit him in that fear. He's traumatized, could never go to a ball game again.

Speaker2: [00:24:10] A much fear could have the ball's moving fast. He didn't have that long to think about it.

Speaker3: [00:24:15] Well, even a short period of extreme terror can be. You know, Jack had his hand up and.

Speaker2: [00:24:21] Oh, yeah, I. I want to know if he was a fan of the Orioles and he was angry at their pitching choices or was he from the other team that was playing that day And he was purposely there trying to psych them out.

Speaker3: [00:24:35] The implication of the case, let's see. Spectators.

Speaker2: [00:24:42] It's usually. Do you sit above this? It's a decide.

Speaker3: [00:24:47] I think they were. Yeah, I think they were. I think they were Red Sox fans. That's the impression that I got from the case. Although it doesn't specifically say.

Speaker2: [00:24:54] Yeah, maybe he just wanted his attention. Mm hmm. Is love something from him? Exactly.

Speaker5: [00:25:01] Does that sound like a misguided crush thing.

Speaker2: [00:25:03] Going on here? Yeah. He was trying to nag him. He's trying to make him feel bad so they can pick him up later.

Speaker3: [00:25:10] All right, so the court looks again. I'm as I've mentioned, I'm contractually obligated to provide 36.2 minutes of actual legal content. And I'm not sure if the preceding ten did constitute actual legal.

Speaker2: [00:25:22] Content or not.

Speaker3: [00:25:25] So but I think.

Speaker5: [00:25:26] With libel versus viable libel, that's going to be 10 minutes worth right there.

Speaker3: [00:25:31] Yeah, that's pretty good stuff.

Speaker2: [00:25:32] That you cannot commit. We can hope we go into extra innings.

Speaker3: [00:25:35] Billy Exactly. Well, you got the like I said, there are the three strikes of plaintiff's law. Liability has to be a slam dunk. Damages have to be big enough that taking a fraction of them is worth your time and the defendant has got to be able to pay. You don't have all three then it's a strikeout or it's not a strikeout or it's a mixed metaphor. I have no idea.

Speaker2: [00:25:59] What was what was the Harry Potter spell you said earlier? The ipso facto?

Speaker3: [00:26:04] Oh, I said, I think I think I said a vicarious, vicarious liability or respondeat superior. Oh, respondeat.

Speaker2: [00:26:12] Superior. Your respondeat.

Speaker3: [00:26:15] Right? Oh, I think that's a.

Speaker2: [00:26:17] Little pile of money pops up.

Speaker3: [00:26:19] I actually think that's a we should all make a little mental note of that. That's a good one. Under Massachusetts law, if you want to sue an employer for damages caused by an employee, it has to be shown that the employee's assault was in response to plaintiff's conduct that was interfering with the employee's ability to perform his duties. So it has to be an interference that's in the form of an affirmative attempt to prevent an employee from carrying out his assignments. This is from a case called Miller versus Federated Department Stores. I don't know what kind of interference led to an assault within a Federated Department store, and that case isn't covered here. And I don't know what kind of harm or injuries were in that case. The important thing is that the interference in order for the intentional tort. To be the fault of the employer. The employee must have been trying to do their job and whoever was interfering with it was interfering with the job. So the question is. So. So the Orioles basically say, look, if you interpret the case of Miller. The heckling. Was annoying. Are insulting to Grimsley. But it wasn't conduct, quote unquote, conduct that did not, quote unquote, presently a fear interfere with Grimsley ability to perform his duties. So therefore they were not liable. That's their argument is that is that he may have been annoyed by the heckling, but it didn't interfere with his ability to do the job of a pitcher.

Speaker5: [00:28:11] Right. Because this is the first time it's ever happened in the history of Major League Baseball that fans have heckled a pitcher.

Speaker2: [00:28:17] Right. That's my problem. I'm stunned to hear that there was heckling going on. Wait, maybe Americans are so violent.

Speaker4: [00:28:25] I mean, this could have been the cruelest heckling that ever took place in public. I mean, we don't hey, this could have been traumatic for him.

Speaker3: [00:28:35] That's quite true. I mean, the Manning family is well known for their acid tongue in their ability to really get under the skin of professional athletes. It's been a long lineage going back to the jousting in the Middle Ages. You know, Manning was just, you know, standing at the sidelines as Sir Lancelot.

Speaker2: [00:28:54] You call that a lance? Exactly.

Speaker3: [00:29:01] Yeah. Oh, and did you. Oh, and did you want to know what happened in in Miller.

Speaker2: [00:29:06] Yeah. Oh, here's what's happening here.

Speaker3: [00:29:08] All right. So Porter, whose job it was to clean the floors and empty the trash cans in the Filene's Basement store, slapped a customer who had annoyed or insulted him, which said he said the customer said, if you would say, excuse me, people would get out of your way.

Speaker4: [00:29:25] So this apparently.

Speaker3: [00:29:27] Yeah, the supreme the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said the employee may have been annoyed by the remark, but that didn't justify imposition of liability on the store.

Speaker2: [00:29:38] I don't know. That sounds like the person was standing there and the guy was like trying to sweep around him or something and the purposely stood in his way. Yeah. I also said if you just say, Excuse me, I'd move.

Speaker4: [00:29:52] I think the customer is right, though, clearly. I mean, somebody says, excuse me, I move. They don't say, excuse me, how do I know what they're what they're trying to do?

Speaker3: [00:30:02] Yeah, exactly. I mean, and this is this is the seventh since 1973.

Speaker2: [00:30:07] There was one case. I mean, the trash can and the big broom in his hand made it kind of unclear.

Speaker4: [00:30:14] How do I know?

Speaker3: [00:30:15] Right, exactly.

Speaker4: [00:30:16] Halloween.

Speaker3: [00:30:18] The bottom line is you're allowed to sass people in Massachusetts in the seventies. That's the bottom.

Speaker2: [00:30:25] Line.

Speaker3: [00:30:27] Legally, you're legally allowed to sass people. And then when you get you know, when you, uh, you know, get slapped, you can you can sue the person who slapped you, but you can't sue the department store.

Speaker4: [00:30:40] And let's just it was also Filene's, which come on, crawls on there on the Daily.

Speaker2: [00:30:46] Yeah.

Speaker3: [00:30:46] Everybody knows Filene's is just it's just a wasteland of.

Speaker5: [00:30:52] Have you seen the prices they're worth fighting for?

Speaker2: [00:30:59] Oh, my God.

Speaker4: [00:30:59] The Filene's Revival commercial.

Speaker2: [00:31:02] Exactly.

Speaker3: [00:31:05] So. So Mila's Mila's case. The case, The Miller case. Miller against Federated says that, you know, a critical comment by a customer to an employee wasn't conduct so constantly that that would interfere with the performance of work. But the court says that's distinguishable, meaning we can tell the difference and we're going to go a different way that's distinguishable. Constant heckling by fans at a baseball park would be conduct. And so therefore, the jury could have found that that conduct had the purpose to rattle or rattle the had the the purpose to rattle or the effect of rattling the employee so he couldn't perform his duties of pitching the ball successfully. So they could have found that the that Grimsley assault wasn't just retaliation, but it was a response to the continuing conduct that was presently interfering with his ability to pitch in the game if he was called upon to play. Remember, he hadn't been called in. He was just warming up. Oh, so So the end result is that the battery count against the Baltimore Orioles should have been submitted to the jury. And so it gets sent by the Court of Appeal back down to the district court. And in order for the jury to consider whether or not the Orioles would be liable for Grimsley throwing the ball at Manning.

Speaker2: [00:32:31] There you have it. Yeah. There was an issue that Baltimore had to defend themselves over in a court of law.

Speaker3: [00:32:40] Well, they had to convince the jury. So, you know, the whole judge and jury strategy. Right. If you can get it thrown out on the law, it goes to the judge. But if it's going to be the facts and he's got to go to the jury.

Speaker4: [00:32:52] Okay. Didn't know. Okay.

Speaker3: [00:32:55] You know, in a trial, the. The judge is the one who determines what the law is and how the law applies. They have a limited role with respect to what the facts are. But if there are disputed issues of fact and those are the province of the jury generally. So questions about whether or not something was reasonable is a factual question under the circumstances. And, you know, does that does that is that what we think is reasonable conduct? That's the role of the jury. The judge is supposed to instruct the jury on what the law is, but not take the place of the jury to determine how to apply the law to the facts. And so that's why you have burdens of proof and things like that. Can you prove the facts to meet these tests, like a tort, like battery has factual elements you have to prove in order to get a result. So it's like a recipe to make pumpkin pie. You need you need the pumpkin, you need the sugar, you need the milk, you need the nutmeg. And if you don't have all those ingredients, you don't have pumpkin pie. And so the jury's job is to determine whether they made the pumpkin pie or not. The judge's job is to tell you you need to have these ingredients to have pumpkin pie done.

Speaker4: [00:34:05] Oh, wow.

Speaker2: [00:34:07] Now I want pumpkin pie.

Speaker4: [00:34:09] Totally.

Speaker5: [00:34:10] I want pumpkin pie made by a.

Speaker2: [00:34:11] Judge and decided by a jury. Yes. That is a pie.

Speaker3: [00:34:19] Exactly.

Speaker2: [00:34:21] And pumpkin, at that.

Speaker3: [00:34:23] Point, what are your questions?

Speaker4: [00:34:25] I mean, I know we're only talking about this one specific case, but surely this has happened many times since this incident. Is this is there is there now a.

Speaker2: [00:34:37] Or pardon me? Or before, I guess. What is it, The eighties. This happened.

Speaker3: [00:34:45] The case was the incident was in 1975. This case is in 1981. It took six years to get here.

Speaker2: [00:34:51] There's been people throwing bottles before that.

Speaker4: [00:34:53] Yeah, even in Little League. I mean, this has got to happen at every at least one in every ten ball games.

Speaker3: [00:35:01] I think that's an interesting side note. It's I think this may have influenced what you put on the back of a ticket stub. You know, I would just add, not only might you be hit by a fly ball or slip on, you know, a wet floor, but you might also be, if, you know, might actually just have someone intentionally throw a ball at you because you're irritating. You know, I just put just put that. That's the irritation. Disclaimer.

Speaker2: [00:35:27] Thank God for digital tickets. There's much more room in order to put these.

Speaker4: [00:35:32] On.

Speaker2: [00:35:32] For now. Oh yeah.

Speaker3: [00:35:34] Yeah. Well and they were long before, but COVID made them like ten times as long.

Speaker2: [00:35:39] I can't find my seat. I don't have enough bandwidth.

Speaker3: [00:35:45] Yeah, and you have to, you know, now they have these COVID waivers. You have to sign. Like, I agree, I could get a deadly virus, But I want to see you know, I want to see James Taylor, So who cares?

Speaker2: [00:35:59] You deserve a deadly virus.

Speaker3: [00:36:03] Where's the hatred.

Speaker4: [00:36:04] For James Taylor?

Speaker2: [00:36:06] Know rock and roll. I mean, I didn't even know he played baseball. You can't go to his right anymore. No.

Speaker3: [00:36:16] God.

Speaker4: [00:36:17] And then I'm. I'm so curious. Back to the was it the Miller case in Filene's where the customer was slapped by the janitor?

Speaker2: [00:36:25] Mm hmm.

Speaker4: [00:36:27] And I know again, the answer is we don't care. But just if there are any notes about how serious the injury was or was it just the humiliation of the slap or.

Speaker3: [00:36:37] I think I think it's probably fair to say that the slap didn't cause any permanent injury. So you would that would be a case where the, um, the, um, emotional distress damages would have been driving the case. You know, I was. I was so shocked. It is. It is relevant. And we're recording this on April 1st, 2022. And absolutely nothing has happened involving a famous snap, slap and slap and last few weeks. And I'm sure that by the time we release this podcast, which could be weeks or months from now, depending on how long it takes us to edit and fill in the filibusters that that nobody will remember, nobody will remember any particularly culturally interesting or provocative events around a slap.

Speaker4: [00:37:29] Nothing happened.

Speaker3: [00:37:30] Nothing happened. We don't even know or care about it.

Speaker2: [00:37:34] Nothing to hear here.

Speaker3: [00:37:36] I mean, the thing is, like, you know, I feel like there's been every single possible take on that whole thing. Like.

Speaker4: [00:37:46] I'm exhausted.

Speaker2: [00:37:47] By it.

Speaker3: [00:37:48] I'm just tired. I'm just. Yeah, It's just like. But I'm going to go ahead and throw in one more take. This is my.

Speaker2: [00:37:54] Take. There you go. Here we go. There we go. Here's my take. Everybody stay mad about it. But here's the thing.

Speaker3: [00:38:02] The the Oscars are fundamentally a totally contrived thing. It's it's it's people who make fake stuff, making fake awards to give to one another. It's 100% inauthentic, staged, scripted, planned and canned. So any time anything happens when it's canned, it's like, Oh my God, something happened that was organic and authentic and real and oh my God, Like somebody had a real emotion. That's what I think is interesting, is that it's like it was actually real emotion between people and it's like people are so shocked by actual, real emotion and real, you know, people reacting to stuff and and letting things affect them and getting upset. And people are messy and make mistakes. And it's interesting to us. It's just like the the seventh grade thing, you know, two people like suddenly get into an argument and then everyone's circling around going.

Speaker2: [00:38:55] Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight.

Speaker3: [00:38:58] You know, that's basically all of America is like doing that right now.

Speaker2: [00:39:02] Oh, it's a fight.

Speaker3: [00:39:04] I have to pick a side. Like, how about. No, but.

Speaker5: [00:39:08] So in that case, is the Academy liable for what happened that day if the Baltimore Orioles are liable or is the Academy liable?

Speaker3: [00:39:18] I don't know. I don't know. There could be some waivers involved. I have no idea. There's probably some contracts involved.

Speaker5: [00:39:24] I'd like to see the back of that ticket.

Speaker3: [00:39:26] Mm hmm. It's a yes.

Speaker2: [00:39:28] Exactly.

Speaker3: [00:39:31] I can't tell you how many people have said that about the Academy Awards.

Speaker2: [00:39:34] Like I say, the back of that ticket. Um, yeah.

Speaker3: [00:39:40] So that's a bad take. That's my bad take. My bad take is that it's bad. And all the takes are bad and there's no and there's a hell of a lot more important things that we need to be thinking about. And that's probably why everyone's so interested. Because important things are hard and hard things are boring.

Speaker5: [00:39:57] I think you're, you know, you make a point to with the sort of organic nature of it, it's a real truthful moment in a evening, a parade of contrived moments. And it's just like it's amazing, right, that this actually happened in that show. Right. And I think that's part of it.

Speaker3: [00:40:20] I have never heard in my entire podcasting career a better transition between the law and the improv, because I've just I've just presented to you a parade of contrived moments and now we're ready for something real and organic. How about it?

Speaker2: [00:40:37] Oh, right. Are you ready to comply?

Speaker3: [00:40:41] We're going to stipulate that Gary is he knows how to improvise with your money, and he's free.

Speaker2: [00:40:47] To.

Speaker3: [00:40:48] And he's free to jump into the improv. But if Gary prefers to be a bystander and just laugh, he can do that, too.

Speaker2: [00:40:53] Oh, I can do that. Mcmann.

Speaker3: [00:40:58] I. Harriet, I'm really impressed with the, the, the wand that you got. It's really, it's really neat. I never saw one that was made of Birch before.

Speaker5: [00:41:15] Uh, well, you know, I just found the stick in the park, and it looked special, and I thought, What if I whittle it a little bit? And as I whittled it, I. I started to be able to. I noticed I started having special powers.

Speaker3: [00:41:33] That's that's amazing. I mean, the other day, when you turn Mr. Jones into a frog, that was totally epic.

Speaker5: [00:41:43] Well, it wasn't just entirely me. I think this a whittled this birch stick in such a way that it is now starting to control my magic. The birch stick controls me.

Speaker3: [00:42:00] Wow. Does that explains that explains why you have been absent so many times.

Speaker5: [00:42:07] Yeah. I've been trying to get here and that I just keep ending up someplace else.

Speaker3: [00:42:12] Right. Right. Like I thought you completely made up. You know, when you were saying in the in the when we were doing our reports about what we did over the summer, I thought you made up the whole thing about spending three weeks in a Caribbean jail cell. But I'm guessing it was true.

Speaker5: [00:42:32] Yeah, I was on the way there. I just did a casual flip of my wand and boom, I was in a jail cell and mostly naked.

Speaker2: [00:42:43] Ooh. So, Harry Potter, I have kind of the last boof. What? What is this, a legal tort? Yes.

Speaker5: [00:43:03] I was trying to make you disappear, but obviously I just served you with some legal papers.

Speaker2: [00:43:09] Yes. This one has a mind of his own. Your mother's side is coming out, is it? Your father was a magician, but your mother was a liar. Go ahead. You won't be able to combine that to stop my magic. You are the boy who lived, but now you die. Okay. Come back with my birch wand. Oh.

Speaker3: [00:43:35] Harry Potter. Don't let this happen. Oh, sorry. I was hiding behind a tree. And I'm Maximilian's Loch Hatteras.

Speaker2: [00:43:46] Look, I hope I've got handcuffs on. What is. What is what? And Miranda. Right in my hands. What is this? Papa John Maximus. What? I can feel my savings have been retracted. What? It's a legal right saying cease and desist from using the intellectual property of J.K. Rowling. What's. What's. This isn't a want of magic. It's a lot of legalities. Well, it won't stop me, brah. Perhaps you could use your legal ease against the dragon. Come forth, Dragon. Oh, well, there's two dragons. That's right. I have a backup just in case.

Speaker5: [00:44:48] If only I could get my hand on that wand, I might be able to do something. Not quite sure what, but something.

Speaker4: [00:44:55] Well, Harry, I'll try.

Speaker3: [00:44:56] To grab it for you, but unfortunately, I'm busy wrestling this dragon over here.

Speaker2: [00:45:06] Oh. Oh. The dragon is eating you. Oh, God. This is terrible.

Speaker4: [00:45:11] Someday I must taste delicious. Oh, no. I don't want to be eaten alive yet.

Speaker2: [00:45:19] Ooh, he's a rock. I'm going to throw it at the dragon. Duh.

Speaker5: [00:45:24] It left my hands at an obtuse angle.

Speaker2: [00:45:27] Oh, my God. Who?

Speaker4: [00:45:31] Did someone get hurt? I just got out of law school. But I'm here to represent you.

Speaker3: [00:45:39] I definitely need a lawyer. I was. I was in the park, and I was admiring Harry. Harry.

Speaker4: [00:45:48] You're hurt, right?

Speaker3: [00:45:50] I'm bleeding from many places. My stomach, my arm, my face. I'm very bloody.

Speaker4: [00:45:57] And I was dragging. So I got three questions for you. Do you have money? No afford me.

Speaker3: [00:46:06] Not at all.

Speaker4: [00:46:08] Okay, then I'm going to do a quick little disappearing act, and I'm going to wish you the best in your healing. Let me call you an Uber, but it's going to be on your own account. Thank you. You're going to be okay. Let me know if you have any friends who have injuries. Who would need my representation. Thank you.

Speaker3: [00:46:28] Lawyer, Magician.

Speaker2: [00:46:29] I think I'm very, very far.

Speaker5: [00:46:37] You may have won this time.

Speaker2: [00:46:39] I can't remember your name.

Speaker5: [00:46:40] Evil Doer, but we'll be back one day.

Speaker2: [00:46:46] Manning.

Speaker5: [00:46:53] Members of the Baltimore Orioles board of directors. Please just take a seat with the meeting is going to start.

Speaker2: [00:47:00] Oh.

Speaker5: [00:47:03] We're starting to see that the Baltimore Orioles nickname doesn't have the same sort of marketability as it once did. And we're going to want to change its name to something more relevant and something that sums us up more clearly to the public.

Speaker3: [00:47:22] I was thinking.

Speaker4: [00:47:23] Orioles. How can we do that?

Speaker3: [00:47:26] Could we be the Baltimore Antifa?

Speaker2: [00:47:30] How about the Baltimore Orioles? I've always thought it's a lateral shift.

Speaker5: [00:47:37] I think that if we start to think about the ramifications of that name and how it's going to play with certain demographics, I think that we have to pick something that is even a bit more neutral.

Speaker4: [00:47:50] Demographics are you talking about?

Speaker5: [00:47:53] Well, we want to appeal to the widest mass of people that we can in the United States and in this current bipartisan sort of mindset that is happening here, we need something that is absolutely palatable to everybody.

Speaker3: [00:48:07] How about the Baltimore Americans.

Speaker2: [00:48:10] For Baltimore apathy?

Speaker5: [00:48:15] You know, we've done some of our market research and focus groups have told us that Baltimore is apathetic towards the team already. So we don't want to keep sort of emphasizing that point.

Speaker2: [00:48:27] But we're good at it.

Speaker5: [00:48:29] Yes, we are good. We are good at being apathetic. We try.

Speaker2: [00:48:32] Our strengths, go with what people know us for. Well.

Speaker3: [00:48:40] I'd vote for it, but I just don't really have much interest there either.

Speaker2: [00:48:45] I mean.

Speaker4: [00:48:45] I'm kind of like I could take it or leave.

Speaker3: [00:48:48] It. I mean, it would be I mean, I don't know if it would be better than Orioles or worse, but I mean, it's an idea.

Speaker4: [00:48:57] What else?

Speaker5: [00:48:59] I think we could throw it in front of a focus group and they could let us know what they think about it. I mean, I've never quite known what Orioles have to do with baseball anyway.

Speaker2: [00:49:10] Okay, folks, thank.

Speaker3: [00:49:12] You for volunteering for this test group. We're just going to throw a couple of things out at you and see how you react.

Speaker4: [00:49:20] Oh, wait, we're not getting paid. Okay.

Speaker5: [00:49:22] I heard. I heard there was going to be a lunch.

Speaker3: [00:49:25] You are going to get lunch and you are going to get paid.

Speaker4: [00:49:28] Okay. Is it going to be subway or blimp biz?

Speaker3: [00:49:32] Well, it's a part of a secret. You're going to have to get a blind taste test. This sandwich I'm putting out in the sandwich in front of each of you. And I can't tell you who the brand is. I can't tell you anything about it. But I want you to just take a couple of bites of this sandwich. And as you take about, take a bite of the sandwich, I want you to ask yourself. And following question. Is the sandwich? Pretty good. Acceptable. Or not.

Speaker2: [00:50:03] That bad. Pretty good.

Speaker3: [00:50:06] Except people are not that bad.

Speaker5: [00:50:08] I finished the first sandwich and I don't think the sampling was large enough for me to make that determination. There. Another sandwich.

Speaker4: [00:50:15] I'm going to need three of these before I can do the study correctly.

Speaker2: [00:50:20] We're talking about the sandwiches or the Baltimore Orioles.

Speaker3: [00:50:23] Oh, we are going to be talking about the Baltimore Ball Club. Now, we've we've gotten rid of the name Orioles. But but. So I want you to think.

Speaker5: [00:50:31] Are you thinking of calling them the Baltimore sandwiches? Because if you are, that's not if the sandwich is any indication it wasn't a substantial.

Speaker3: [00:50:40] That's true. So in. We have we have insubstantial as a as a potential descriptor of the sandwich. Not enough.

Speaker5: [00:50:52] Oh, are you suggesting we call them the Baltimore insubstantial Because that's a pretty good name.

Speaker3: [00:50:58] Baltimore. Insubstantial. How does the group feel about the Baltimore insubstantial as.

Speaker2: [00:51:04] Not enough.

Speaker3: [00:51:07] Okay, How about. Does anyone feel? I have a feeling one way or another or preference about the the Baltimore.

Speaker2: [00:51:16] Yeah. Hmm.

Speaker5: [00:51:21] Are you spelling that with an apostrophe?

Speaker3: [00:51:23] It's. Yeah, it's. It's n m apostrophe e h. Mm hmm.

Speaker5: [00:51:31] I like it because it's a very confusing word to read. So it would attract my attention that way. But it might take away from me watching the baseball game as I try to pronounce the word.

Speaker4: [00:51:47] All right, well, let's make more sense to me than Orioles.

Speaker2: [00:51:51] Yeah.

Speaker5: [00:51:53] An oil can't even hold a bat. So I've never understood that.

Speaker2: [00:51:58] It can land on women.

Speaker3: [00:51:59] I mean.

Speaker2: [00:52:00] I.

Speaker4: [00:52:01] Care either way. I mean.

Speaker3: [00:52:02] A lot of people get confused because they think it's a sandwich cookie and they're there. They you know, they want to they're like, I want the double stuf, kind of the Oreos.

Speaker5: [00:52:16] So Oriole is actually the plural of Oreo.

Speaker3: [00:52:20] That's what many people have been thinking that and that's why we you know, we've been we've had this cease season dismissed. I'm probably telling you, I'm probably telling you too much as part of this focus group. But yes, there's been a cease and desist letter from the Nabisco Company. And apparently, you know, I guess I can just be totally transparent with you folks. We need to choose a different name. And the board feels strongly that it needs to be something that conveys apathy. So maybe we can just discuss words when you think of Baltimore baseball. Um.

Speaker4: [00:52:55] Yeah.

Speaker2: [00:52:56] You like little wafers? No.

Speaker3: [00:53:02] Did Baltimore baseball bring? You know. Does the word apathy mean something to you if the Baltimore apathetic folks.

Speaker5: [00:53:12] Wow. It's very close to the Oakland Athletics, but.

Speaker2: [00:53:18] Which they are and we're not that.

Speaker5: [00:53:26] What about if we just put a series of consonants in a random generator and just came up with the Baltimore boy and.

Speaker3: [00:53:33] Oh, Baltimore.

Speaker2: [00:53:34] Ballistics.

Speaker3: [00:53:36] No, I'm sorry. What did you say, sir?

Speaker2: [00:53:39] Ballistics.

Speaker3: [00:53:40] Ballistics.

Speaker2: [00:53:41] Baltimore Ballistics. Baltimore Ballistics. That I don't know that the rest of the day.

Speaker5: [00:53:51] That's another word that I would just stare at for a long time, wondering like those words in or is that an anagram for something? And again, I think I'd probably just miss the game.

Speaker2: [00:54:06] That seems to be what a lot of people in Baltimore are doing these days, but no pep to a hospital room across town. Are you sure Mr. Grimsley is going to be able to make it today? I don't want to take him away from his busy schedule just to visit me. Jimmy.

Speaker5: [00:54:36] I know I'm your doctor and also your nurse and your father. But yet Mr. Grimsley is not. And I know that.

Speaker2: [00:54:46] You've talked to Dad, but.

Speaker5: [00:54:50] And I know that you're very close to death, and Make-A-Wish has let you down so many times. But Mr. Grimsley is not going to be able to make it today because he's he's in a court of law. Because.

Speaker2: [00:55:05] Knock, knock.

Speaker4: [00:55:05] Knock, knock.

Speaker5: [00:55:07] No, there's someone at the door.

Speaker4: [00:55:10] Aren't you, Jimmy?

Speaker2: [00:55:12] Yeah. Hi, I'm Jimmy. Can you come closer? It's hard to see My eyes are failing.

Speaker5: [00:55:19] Grimsley Aren't you supposed to be in a court of law?

Speaker4: [00:55:21] I ran out of that court when I heard that Jimmy was on his deathbed. Do you let you die? I mean, you're not going to die. Don't you worry, Jimmy. You're not. Why not? As long as I'm here.

Speaker2: [00:55:33] But.

Speaker5: [00:55:34] Mr. Grimsley, please stop touching that equipment. I'm a trained professional and a parent.

Speaker4: [00:55:39] I don't give a damn. Not when his life is on the line. I am here to make him happy.

Speaker2: [00:55:46] I've never. Let me take Mr. Grimsley. Mr. Grimsley, it's such an honor to meet you. And you've done so much for me already. I just. I can't ask you for more.

Speaker4: [00:55:58] I just. Travis kid I've ever seen. And let me tell you something. You're not going to die in here today. I know this is your sixth heart transplant, but today you are going to have this final operation and you are going to be the astronaut you always wanted to be.

Speaker5: [00:56:19] Oh, my God. His blood pressure is improving. His heart rate is improving. His platelet count has gone up.

Speaker2: [00:56:25] Come on, Mr. Grimsley, can you do me a favor?

Speaker4: [00:56:30] Anything for you, Jenny.

Speaker2: [00:56:32] I know you have a big game today. Yes. Can you throw an 80 mile an hour fastball at a drunken heckler and maybe. Maybe take him out in a head or his spleen? Please.

Speaker4: [00:56:47] You know what, Jenny? It's going to be a 90 mile ball straight to the head and seen.

Speaker3: [00:56:55] Well, that brings us to the end of this week's legal voyage. And I want to thank you for joining me, your captain, on this earmark edition of Laying Down the law. I'd like to thank my crew this week, Doug Morenci, Jack Moss, Hammar, Gary Pia and Pia Smith and listener. I'd like to thank you for coming along with us. Wherever you are, you're also here while you're there via the magic of earmarks. Cpe. I'd also like to thank the.

Speaker2: [00:57:24] Og.

Speaker3: [00:57:25] Cello performance CPA Blake Oliver for building earmarked CPE the mighty little app that makes learning fun and free.

Speaker2: [00:57:34] Mostly free.

Speaker3: [00:57:35] But now you can subscribe. Isn't that right, Blake? That's right, Billy. And speaking of mighty, thank you to the mighty Q Quentin Fichtner for the mighty cover Art.

Speaker2: [00:57:45] Thank you for the opportunity, Billy.

Speaker4: [00:57:47] And if the listeners want some cool art of your own. You can find me my pro dot com.

Speaker3: [00:57:52] Thank you to David Felton for creating the awesome all original music. And a special thank you to Jeff at Fichtner Productions.

Speaker2: [00:58:03] Hey, that's me. Yes, Jeff.

Speaker3: [00:58:06] That is you. Thank you, Jeff, for making a little boy's radio show. Dreams into a Middle Aged.

Speaker2: [00:58:13] Man's podcast's reality. So until next time. Wait. What's this?

Speaker1: [00:58:20] You forgot something.

Speaker3: [00:58:21] What's that? I forgot something you say?

Speaker1: [00:58:24] Yeah. You got to do the thing. You know the thing.

Speaker3: [00:58:27] All right. If you want even more of that delicious little nut butter drenched in comedy chocolate, find the full version of this.

Speaker4: [00:58:36] And every amazing episode of laying down the law at.

Speaker2: [00:58:40] Dotcom or wherever.

Speaker3: [00:58:42] In the metaverse, you get your podcasts.

Speaker1: [00:58:45] That's fit. E procom. Find your productions is not responsible for the preceding comments related to nut butter. If you or someone you know experiences nausea, third eye blindness, sudden onset euphoria, or have an unrelenting craving for ham, seek help immediately. Laying down the law is protected by the Intergalactic Treaty of Euripides. Start 82182190. If you'd like a transcript of the show, please send a self-addressed stamped envelope to Colonel Steve Austin of the Foundation for Law and Government. Two, 21a Baker Street, Beverly Hills 90210. Any likeness to real places, persons or events is absolutely happenstance. We'd never intentionally crib real life happenings to make a podcast. We're not true crime after all. It's more likely a situation similar to the chimpanzees, typewriters and Shakespeare. Right? That's what attorney Steve says anyway. And if you know what's good for you, you listen to Attorney Steve. I don't argue with Attorney Steve mostly because he ain't right in the head and quite honestly frightens me a little bit. The last time we went to court, the judge started asking him all kinds of weird questions, like, where did you study law and why hasn't the state bar of California ever heard of you? Then attorney Steve started doing this weird, deep breathing meditation kind of thing and muttering under his breath about a monster drug fight and how the judge ain't got nothing on a £15,000, 2000 horsepower, fire breathing death cage on wheels, and then the L.A. Heat running with his taser. And honestly, that's the truth. Steve, come with me. It was only traffic, for God's sake.