WEBVTT - Manafort Trial Delayed as Jury Selection Begins

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.800
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. As Paul manaforts

0:00:22.800 --> 0:00:25.480
<v Speaker 1>trial is scheduled to begin Monday after a week delay.

0:00:25.640 --> 0:00:29.120
<v Speaker 1>Here's President Trump speaking about his former campaign manager with

0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:33.520
<v Speaker 1>Fox News is Sean Hannity last week. Paul Manafort, Who's

0:00:33.560 --> 0:00:35.760
<v Speaker 1>who really is a nice man? You look at what's

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:39.760
<v Speaker 1>going on with him. It's like al Capone two thousand

0:00:39.800 --> 0:00:42.640
<v Speaker 1>and five tax case on a case that I guess

0:00:43.680 --> 0:00:46.519
<v Speaker 1>it's just a sad thing. It's a very sad thing

0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:49.239
<v Speaker 1>for our country to say this joining us. He as

0:00:49.280 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 1>former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, head of the criminal investigations

0:00:52.400 --> 0:00:55.520
<v Speaker 1>in White Color Practice at McCarter and English. Bob, I

0:00:55.560 --> 0:00:59.720
<v Speaker 1>don't know whether comparing someone to a gangster evokes much sympathy,

0:00:59.760 --> 0:01:02.960
<v Speaker 1>but it is the case against Manafort for tax and

0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:09.240
<v Speaker 1>bank fraud, similar to the case against Capone for tax evasion. Well, June,

0:01:09.280 --> 0:01:12.480
<v Speaker 1>I think it's more complicated than that. In this case.

0:01:12.600 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 1>Manafort is accused of making tens of millions of dollars

0:01:15.800 --> 0:01:20.600
<v Speaker 1>while working for former pro Russia Ukrainian President of Victor

0:01:21.120 --> 0:01:24.839
<v Speaker 1>Yana Kovic and his party, and then concealing those earnings

0:01:24.920 --> 0:01:28.520
<v Speaker 1>and the offshore bank accounts that held them from U

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:32.240
<v Speaker 1>S authorities. He's also charged with misleading lenders about his

0:01:32.360 --> 0:01:35.679
<v Speaker 1>finances to induce them to make twenty million dollars in

0:01:35.760 --> 0:01:37.560
<v Speaker 1>loans to him. So I think what we're going to

0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:40.560
<v Speaker 1>see in this case is a is a case that

0:01:40.720 --> 0:01:43.920
<v Speaker 1>is very heavy in terms of documents, and it's really

0:01:43.920 --> 0:01:47.000
<v Speaker 1>going to be a follow the documents, follow the money

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:50.880
<v Speaker 1>type of prosecution. The prosecutors have listed more than four

0:01:51.280 --> 0:01:54.440
<v Speaker 1>exhibits for trial, but they appear to be trying to

0:01:54.560 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 1>ensure that it's not just going to be a boring

0:01:57.040 --> 0:02:01.040
<v Speaker 1>trial of bank records and business contract and tax returns.

0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:05.360
<v Speaker 1>Tell us about some of the things they have in mind. Well,

0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:09.520
<v Speaker 1>any good prosecution has to involve a narrative. It's not

0:02:09.600 --> 0:02:12.080
<v Speaker 1>simply getting up there and reeling off a series of

0:02:12.160 --> 0:02:16.120
<v Speaker 1>documents and asking the jurors to connect the dots themselves.

0:02:16.160 --> 0:02:18.360
<v Speaker 1>So I think what we can expect here is that

0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:22.080
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors are going to paint this tale of Mantifort making

0:02:22.160 --> 0:02:25.799
<v Speaker 1>tens of millions of dollars as this unregistered agent for Ukraine,

0:02:26.120 --> 0:02:29.960
<v Speaker 1>than steering the money into these offshore accounts in countries

0:02:30.000 --> 0:02:34.239
<v Speaker 1>around the globe, than using that money to buy houses, cars,

0:02:34.240 --> 0:02:38.480
<v Speaker 1>expensive clothing and jewelry, and ultimately lying to US authorities

0:02:38.520 --> 0:02:41.040
<v Speaker 1>and to banks about what he earned with his wealth.

0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:45.239
<v Speaker 1>It's basically a case that involves tax evasion and bank fraud.

0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:48.640
<v Speaker 1>And part of that case will allow prosecutors to show

0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:53.399
<v Speaker 1>photographs of houses and jewelry, expensive renovations that were done

0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:57.040
<v Speaker 1>on various properties that Mantifort owned out in the Hampton's

0:02:57.160 --> 0:03:00.160
<v Speaker 1>and in Brooklyn and in other locations, and so he

0:03:00.240 --> 0:03:03.519
<v Speaker 1>they're going to show not only how he earned his money,

0:03:03.840 --> 0:03:06.640
<v Speaker 1>how he concealed the money, but then ultimately that he

0:03:06.760 --> 0:03:09.280
<v Speaker 1>used that money for his own personal benefit, to show

0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:11.880
<v Speaker 1>that he in fact owned the money, that he controlled it,

0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:14.120
<v Speaker 1>and he should have reported on his taxes but failed

0:03:14.160 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>to do so. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Well,

0:03:17.080 --> 0:03:19.840
<v Speaker 1>in light of all the evidence that prosecutors seem to have,

0:03:20.200 --> 0:03:25.960
<v Speaker 1>what kind of defense might Manafort put up. Well, Manaford

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:28.720
<v Speaker 1>has an experienced legal team, and he apparently has the

0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:33.440
<v Speaker 1>financial wherewithal to attack the government's case because he's done

0:03:33.440 --> 0:03:36.560
<v Speaker 1>so very aggressively so far, so I think we can

0:03:36.600 --> 0:03:39.640
<v Speaker 1>expect to see prosecutors, I'm sorry, I expect that we

0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:42.120
<v Speaker 1>can expect to see his defense lawyers going after the

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:44.920
<v Speaker 1>government's case in a in a very aggressive way of

0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:47.760
<v Speaker 1>continuing on the path that they've already started here, which

0:03:47.800 --> 0:03:51.240
<v Speaker 1>will mean really attacking the key points in the government's case,

0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:56.120
<v Speaker 1>which is manafort state of mind, the government's requirement that

0:03:56.200 --> 0:03:59.120
<v Speaker 1>they show that he controlled those offshore accounts, and the

0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 1>history of off short income. Part of the government's case

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:05.040
<v Speaker 1>is going to be a reliance on his one time

0:04:05.120 --> 0:04:08.280
<v Speaker 1>right hand man, Rick Gates, and some of those accounts

0:04:08.280 --> 0:04:10.960
<v Speaker 1>were set up by Gates. The government's going to argue

0:04:11.000 --> 0:04:14.160
<v Speaker 1>that Manafort was aware that those accounts were set up

0:04:14.160 --> 0:04:16.839
<v Speaker 1>and that he'd benefited from those accounts. But clearly the

0:04:16.880 --> 0:04:19.960
<v Speaker 1>defense is going to attack Gates's credibility, and the defense

0:04:20.040 --> 0:04:23.800
<v Speaker 1>has at least something to work with because Gates, in

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:28.520
<v Speaker 1>pleading guilty, acknowledged that he failed to report uh income,

0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:31.599
<v Speaker 1>that he used three million dollars from offshore accounts for

0:04:31.640 --> 0:04:35.080
<v Speaker 1>his own mortgages, and his children's tuition and interior decorating,

0:04:35.680 --> 0:04:39.760
<v Speaker 1>and Gates was without or without any doubt central to

0:04:39.800 --> 0:04:42.919
<v Speaker 1>this case. He opened up fifty five accounts allegedly with

0:04:43.000 --> 0:04:47.080
<v Speaker 1>thirteen financial institutions over a dozen years. So the defense

0:04:47.200 --> 0:04:50.320
<v Speaker 1>is going to have some opportunity to attack Gates his

0:04:50.360 --> 0:04:54.240
<v Speaker 1>credibility and in doing so try to distance their client

0:04:54.400 --> 0:04:56.320
<v Speaker 1>from these crimes and show that he did not have

0:04:56.360 --> 0:04:58.839
<v Speaker 1>the state of mind to conceal these assets from the

0:04:58.880 --> 0:05:01.839
<v Speaker 1>government and was not guilty of the charges that the

0:05:01.880 --> 0:05:04.240
<v Speaker 1>government has brought against him. But when I asked you

0:05:04.279 --> 0:05:07.919
<v Speaker 1>about one thing, which is the prosecutors gave Manaforts lawyers

0:05:08.440 --> 0:05:11.599
<v Speaker 1>twenty thousand documents this month, and that's why the judge

0:05:11.880 --> 0:05:15.159
<v Speaker 1>granted the defense request to push back the trial a week.

0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:18.800
<v Speaker 1>The prosecutors had the late handover of documents wouldn't affect

0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:22.680
<v Speaker 1>Manaforts defense because the only new material was photographs and images.

0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:26.600
<v Speaker 1>Is that late timing suspicious in any way as sort

0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:30.560
<v Speaker 1>of game playing, Well, I don't really think it's suspicious,

0:05:30.560 --> 0:05:33.359
<v Speaker 1>because it's not unusual for the government to continue to

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:36.800
<v Speaker 1>be investigating right up to the day of trial. But

0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:40.200
<v Speaker 1>I also think that it was quite predictable that the

0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:42.640
<v Speaker 1>judge is going to give some additional time because merely

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:46.480
<v Speaker 1>because prosecutors are saying that this evidence is not relevant,

0:05:46.839 --> 0:05:49.120
<v Speaker 1>um doesn't mean that it might not be relevant to

0:05:49.200 --> 0:05:51.480
<v Speaker 1>the defense. Like the defense really doesn't have to take

0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:53.479
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors words for it that there could not be some

0:05:53.560 --> 0:05:58.200
<v Speaker 1>exculpatory information in those documents. And a good defense lawyer

0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:00.200
<v Speaker 1>is going to be familiar with all the documents that

0:06:00.279 --> 0:06:03.840
<v Speaker 1>they have in their possession through discovery. So what the

0:06:03.920 --> 0:06:06.440
<v Speaker 1>judge did here is split the baby in a sense.

0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:09.559
<v Speaker 1>Because the defense had asked for a longer adjournment, trying

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:12.080
<v Speaker 1>to push this trial back beyond the other trial that's

0:06:12.080 --> 0:06:14.919
<v Speaker 1>scheduled in September. The judge refused to do that, but

0:06:14.960 --> 0:06:17.000
<v Speaker 1>he did give them an extra week to go through

0:06:17.040 --> 0:06:19.440
<v Speaker 1>these documents that they just received within the last month.

0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:21.719
<v Speaker 1>Only about a minute, your Bob. But this will be

0:06:21.760 --> 0:06:25.400
<v Speaker 1>the first court test for the Special Council's team. So

0:06:25.440 --> 0:06:27.840
<v Speaker 1>even though it's on bank fraud and tax charges, how

0:06:27.880 --> 0:06:32.159
<v Speaker 1>important is the result here to the Special Council? It's

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:35.240
<v Speaker 1>enormously important. I can't imagine a case where the stakes

0:06:35.279 --> 0:06:39.160
<v Speaker 1>are higher. Obviously, the credibility of this investigation has been

0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:43.040
<v Speaker 1>attacked by the president has been attacked by other people

0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:48.039
<v Speaker 1>in Congress and other interest groups. Um, Robert Mueller has

0:06:48.080 --> 0:06:50.720
<v Speaker 1>to show that he is doing his job, that this

0:06:50.839 --> 0:06:55.680
<v Speaker 1>is not uh, simply a phishing expedition, and so uh

0:06:55.720 --> 0:06:59.880
<v Speaker 1>it's absolutely critically important for the credibility of this special

0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 1>helpful investigation that they make some of these charges stick.

0:07:03.400 --> 0:07:05.920
<v Speaker 1>And it's going to be the defense's job to try

0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:08.279
<v Speaker 1>to make sure that doesn't happen. All Right, Bob, thanks

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:14.720
<v Speaker 1>so much. That's Robert Mint's partner at McCarter in English.

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:18.440
<v Speaker 1>Last karate, MGM Resorts sued the victims of the shooting

0:07:18.440 --> 0:07:21.360
<v Speaker 1>at its Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas in October,

0:07:21.800 --> 0:07:24.760
<v Speaker 1>using an anti terrorism law that could wipe out its

0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:28.239
<v Speaker 1>liability for what was the worst mass shooting in US history.

0:07:28.760 --> 0:07:32.480
<v Speaker 1>It didn't take long for the hashtag boycott MGM Resorts

0:07:32.520 --> 0:07:35.760
<v Speaker 1>to appear on Twitter. Katherine Lombardo, a lawyer for some

0:07:35.840 --> 0:07:38.239
<v Speaker 1>of the shooting victims, says, the lawsuit is a trick.

0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:42.720
<v Speaker 1>This was not a terrorist attack. This was negligence on

0:07:42.800 --> 0:07:47.200
<v Speaker 1>the on behalf of MGM. They're trying to hide behind

0:07:47.360 --> 0:07:50.679
<v Speaker 1>the Safety Act. Joining me is Thomas Russell, a professor

0:07:50.720 --> 0:07:53.520
<v Speaker 1>at the Strum College and of Law at the University

0:07:53.600 --> 0:07:58.720
<v Speaker 1>of Denver, Thomas Many tell us about the law MGM

0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:02.320
<v Speaker 1>is basing its laws Sudan called the Support Anti Terrorism

0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:07.560
<v Speaker 1>by Fostering Technologies Act or the Safety Act. UM. First,

0:08:07.560 --> 0:08:09.480
<v Speaker 1>thanks for having me on, and I do have to

0:08:09.480 --> 0:08:12.960
<v Speaker 1>correct you. It's Sturm College of Law and not Strum

0:08:13.000 --> 0:08:15.040
<v Speaker 1>and we get that all the time, but I just

0:08:15.160 --> 0:08:19.320
<v Speaker 1>I'm monitor bound to make that correction. UM. So this

0:08:19.440 --> 0:08:21.800
<v Speaker 1>act is an act and that you know, put in

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:26.080
<v Speaker 1>place by Congress about fifteen years ago. UM. It bears

0:08:26.640 --> 0:08:30.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of elements of anti terrorism and also elements of

0:08:30.960 --> 0:08:34.199
<v Speaker 1>Torque reform and kind of combines both of those together

0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:40.559
<v Speaker 1>and makes it more difficult to sue someone who has

0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:46.520
<v Speaker 1>UM hired somebody who's deployed a technology that is supposed

0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:50.240
<v Speaker 1>to be an anti terrorism technology. UM. And so the

0:08:50.360 --> 0:08:55.400
<v Speaker 1>claim UM by MGM is that they should be able

0:08:55.440 --> 0:08:59.880
<v Speaker 1>to shift liability from themselves or more likely from their

0:09:00.000 --> 0:09:06.439
<v Speaker 1>insurers to the insurance company for Contemporary Services Corporation, which

0:09:06.480 --> 0:09:11.520
<v Speaker 1>did the security work on the ground below the Mandalais

0:09:11.520 --> 0:09:15.120
<v Speaker 1>Bay Hotel. So this is the first time I believe

0:09:15.160 --> 0:09:17.959
<v Speaker 1>that this law is being used. So there's no pressing

0:09:18.040 --> 0:09:20.480
<v Speaker 1>to follow, but there do seem to be some hurdles,

0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:25.400
<v Speaker 1>one being that perhaps a security company was protected under

0:09:25.440 --> 0:09:28.679
<v Speaker 1>the law, but MGM hasn't gone through the process that

0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:33.920
<v Speaker 1>the firm did to get certification under the Act. Well,

0:09:34.440 --> 0:09:37.960
<v Speaker 1>I actually think that my reading again, as you say,

0:09:38.080 --> 0:09:41.800
<v Speaker 1>it's correct that there hasn't been adjudication under this statute.

0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:44.040
<v Speaker 1>So in fact, we don't really know what it means,

0:09:44.120 --> 0:09:46.920
<v Speaker 1>and it will take some some time before we figure

0:09:46.960 --> 0:09:51.040
<v Speaker 1>that out. Um. My reading of the statute and the

0:09:51.040 --> 0:09:56.320
<v Speaker 1>related regulations are that the company creates a technology which

0:09:56.520 --> 0:10:00.440
<v Speaker 1>can include maybe a service to that is the designed

0:10:00.559 --> 0:10:04.439
<v Speaker 1>to prevent some form of mass attack, and then when

0:10:05.520 --> 0:10:09.920
<v Speaker 1>another entity hires that company, the liability should something go

0:10:10.000 --> 0:10:14.880
<v Speaker 1>wrong shifts to the to the entity providing the technology,

0:10:14.920 --> 0:10:18.679
<v Speaker 1>the anti anti terrorism technology. So there are a set

0:10:18.720 --> 0:10:22.520
<v Speaker 1>of steps of approval through the Department of Homeland Security

0:10:22.640 --> 0:10:26.319
<v Speaker 1>that the that the security company would have gone through. Um,

0:10:26.360 --> 0:10:28.880
<v Speaker 1>it's a little less clear to me exactly what MGM

0:10:28.920 --> 0:10:32.480
<v Speaker 1>would have gone through that. An important thing to note

0:10:32.480 --> 0:10:34.800
<v Speaker 1>here is that there's a lot of loss, of course,

0:10:34.960 --> 0:10:39.320
<v Speaker 1>from injuries, death, from emotional harm, everything else. One of

0:10:39.440 --> 0:10:43.520
<v Speaker 1>the things that the statute does is narrows the think

0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:46.160
<v Speaker 1>the amount of money that can be recovered for a

0:10:46.240 --> 0:10:50.320
<v Speaker 1>variety of things. This the act eliminates punitive damages, for example,

0:10:50.800 --> 0:10:56.040
<v Speaker 1>it narrows the recovery of economic harm for emotional loss. Um,

0:10:56.480 --> 0:11:02.200
<v Speaker 1>it narrows eliminates something related to health insurance essentially is

0:11:02.240 --> 0:11:06.520
<v Speaker 1>what it does. Um. And And at the same time,

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:10.560
<v Speaker 1>the Act limits the recovery to the total amount of

0:11:10.640 --> 0:11:17.920
<v Speaker 1>insurance that the security contractor has. So it's significant goal. Yeah,

0:11:18.000 --> 0:11:21.560
<v Speaker 1>go ahead. So UM, now they're asking for the court

0:11:21.640 --> 0:11:26.520
<v Speaker 1>to declare the company isn't liable at all. Um. Is

0:11:26.559 --> 0:11:30.760
<v Speaker 1>there any problem with the victims claims that MGM was

0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:33.720
<v Speaker 1>negligent and that there were red flags about the shooter

0:11:34.200 --> 0:11:36.760
<v Speaker 1>that the hotel should have picked up on, such as

0:11:36.840 --> 0:11:40.520
<v Speaker 1>piling up weapons in his room where the hotel hired

0:11:40.559 --> 0:11:44.600
<v Speaker 1>the security company for the concert itself. So I'm not

0:11:44.720 --> 0:11:49.200
<v Speaker 1>sure if any of that crosses well. I agree with

0:11:49.240 --> 0:11:51.000
<v Speaker 1>you there, and I'd need to see more of the

0:11:51.080 --> 0:11:53.520
<v Speaker 1>pleadings and some of the lawsuits that were filed and

0:11:53.559 --> 0:11:59.280
<v Speaker 1>then subsequently withdrawn. But to simplify, I can conceive of

0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:02.679
<v Speaker 1>an activity on the ground and there may have been

0:12:02.760 --> 0:12:05.440
<v Speaker 1>negligence in relationship to that and to the music the

0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:10.640
<v Speaker 1>music festival, and then separately negligence in the hotel. And

0:12:10.679 --> 0:12:13.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm not saying it was negligent, but perhaps negligence in

0:12:13.960 --> 0:12:17.520
<v Speaker 1>the hotel in allowing the number of bags to come

0:12:17.559 --> 0:12:20.080
<v Speaker 1>in and that sort of stuff, although frankly, I'm not

0:12:20.120 --> 0:12:23.880
<v Speaker 1>sure I want hotels counting my baggage. So it may

0:12:23.920 --> 0:12:27.160
<v Speaker 1>be that if this act protects MGM, it could be

0:12:27.200 --> 0:12:29.720
<v Speaker 1>that it protects him only on the ground, but not

0:12:29.840 --> 0:12:33.120
<v Speaker 1>for what they did in their hotel. Right, MGM does

0:12:33.160 --> 0:12:36.080
<v Speaker 1>own both the festival and the hotel, but they own

0:12:36.160 --> 0:12:38.960
<v Speaker 1>them separately through a through a complicated corporate structure that

0:12:38.960 --> 0:12:44.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't fully comprehend. Okay um, So many critics are

0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:50.400
<v Speaker 1>calling out this lawsuit as outrageous, disgraceful, and worse. Did

0:12:50.400 --> 0:12:53.520
<v Speaker 1>it shock you that MGM would use this legal maneuver

0:12:53.640 --> 0:12:59.160
<v Speaker 1>so to speak? Now, I'm not shocked, and honestly, I

0:12:59.200 --> 0:13:03.560
<v Speaker 1>mean it maybe seems a little premature to seek a

0:13:03.640 --> 0:13:07.560
<v Speaker 1>declaratory judgment. On the other hand, they've got people who

0:13:07.640 --> 0:13:09.760
<v Speaker 1>either filed suit and then withdrew it or said they're

0:13:09.760 --> 0:13:13.360
<v Speaker 1>going to sue them. It makes sense to consolidate these

0:13:13.440 --> 0:13:15.800
<v Speaker 1>somewhere and I think that what is likely is that

0:13:15.840 --> 0:13:19.720
<v Speaker 1>this is all going to be consolidated within one federal

0:13:19.760 --> 0:13:23.480
<v Speaker 1>courthouse somewhere in the United States, and and who knows

0:13:23.480 --> 0:13:28.040
<v Speaker 1>where that will be. Um, you know, it may feel shocking. Um,

0:13:28.080 --> 0:13:31.440
<v Speaker 1>it's a little bit novel, but it's it shouldn't be

0:13:31.480 --> 0:13:34.360
<v Speaker 1>shocking that an entity that faces a lot of liability

0:13:34.440 --> 0:13:37.880
<v Speaker 1>wants to limit that liability and push that liability to

0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:41.520
<v Speaker 1>others if they can do some And MGM spokeswoman said

0:13:41.520 --> 0:13:44.120
<v Speaker 1>the federal court is an appropriate venue in the best

0:13:44.160 --> 0:13:47.679
<v Speaker 1>and fastest way to resolve the cases. Will you explain

0:13:47.720 --> 0:13:51.000
<v Speaker 1>why MGM and most corporations want cases to be tried

0:13:51.040 --> 0:13:55.160
<v Speaker 1>in federal court and plaintiffs and most victims would rather

0:13:55.240 --> 0:13:59.280
<v Speaker 1>have it in state court. Well, I think the simple

0:13:59.280 --> 0:14:01.959
<v Speaker 1>truth of the matter is, and I should add here

0:14:02.000 --> 0:14:04.600
<v Speaker 1>to that, I'm a law professor, but also practice law

0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:07.960
<v Speaker 1>on the side of plaineiffs, so that's generally where my

0:14:08.000 --> 0:14:10.760
<v Speaker 1>sympathies lie. But in this case, you know, I'm trying

0:14:10.800 --> 0:14:12.200
<v Speaker 1>to give it to you as straight as I can.

0:14:12.960 --> 0:14:14.800
<v Speaker 1>The truth of the matter is, the federal judges in

0:14:14.800 --> 0:14:17.160
<v Speaker 1>our country are the best, are the best judges that

0:14:17.240 --> 0:14:19.840
<v Speaker 1>we have, and the federal courts of the are the

0:14:19.880 --> 0:14:24.360
<v Speaker 1>most efficient and effective courts that we have, and it's

0:14:24.360 --> 0:14:28.320
<v Speaker 1>going to help a party to be able to consolidate

0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:32.080
<v Speaker 1>in one, as I said, in one court or you know,

0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:34.600
<v Speaker 1>one set of courts, rather than to have to litigate

0:14:34.640 --> 0:14:37.440
<v Speaker 1>in a number of different states, between the number of

0:14:37.440 --> 0:14:40.960
<v Speaker 1>different judges in front of whom who are who are

0:14:40.960 --> 0:14:45.520
<v Speaker 1>elected or appointed in a variety of different ways. So um,

0:14:45.800 --> 0:14:47.760
<v Speaker 1>the best judges you can get are in the United

0:14:47.800 --> 0:14:50.600
<v Speaker 1>States District Court. All right, Thanks so much for being

0:14:50.600 --> 0:14:53.560
<v Speaker 1>on the show. That's Thomas Russell. He's a professor at

0:14:53.600 --> 0:14:58.000
<v Speaker 1>the Stern College of Law at the University of Denver.

0:14:58.840 --> 0:15:01.600
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Blue Burg Law Podcast. You

0:15:01.640 --> 0:15:05.560
<v Speaker 1>can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:15:05.640 --> 0:15:09.560
<v Speaker 1>and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:15:10.000 --> 0:15:11.320
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg