1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:13,600
Speaker 1: During her confirmation hearings, Justice Katangi Brown Jackson said her

3
00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:17,720
Speaker 1: experiences as a public defender, a member of the Sentencing Commission,

4
00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:21,120
Speaker 1: and appellate judge, and a trial judge would inform her

5
00:00:21,280 --> 00:00:25,040
Speaker 1: role on the Supreme Court. I was a trial judge,

6
00:00:25,400 --> 00:00:31,200
Speaker 1: and my methodology has developed in that context. I don't

7
00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:34,159
Speaker 1: know how many other justices other than Justice so do

8
00:00:34,280 --> 00:00:39,639
Speaker 1: mayor have that same perspective. But it informs me with

9
00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:44,960
Speaker 1: respect to what I understand to be my proper judicial role. Now,

10
00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:47,920
Speaker 1: some defense lawyers are hoping that Jackson will become a

11
00:00:48,040 --> 00:00:52,360
Speaker 1: voice for criminal defendants unlike her predecessor, and use the

12
00:00:52,440 --> 00:00:55,360
Speaker 1: weight of her experience to form a new majority on

13
00:00:55,400 --> 00:00:59,040
Speaker 1: the court in some criminal cases. An early task will

14
00:00:59,080 --> 00:01:01,920
Speaker 1: come in a case that asks whether judges can punish

15
00:01:01,960 --> 00:01:05,959
Speaker 1: defendants for crimes a jury has acquitted them of. Joining

16
00:01:06,000 --> 00:01:10,240
Speaker 1: me is Ohio State University law professor Douglas Burman. Do

17
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:14,400
Speaker 1: do you think that Justice Jackson's background will give her

18
00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:18,000
Speaker 1: more gravity toss than a normal junior justice at the

19
00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:22,319
Speaker 1: conference table when it comes to criminal justice issues? Yeah, so,

20
00:01:22,640 --> 00:01:28,160
Speaker 1: Judge Jackson has a really rich history both in the

21
00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:31,040
Speaker 1: work of the judiciary. So you know, he clerked for

22
00:01:31,120 --> 00:01:33,680
Speaker 1: three different judges, you know, two judges and a justice.

23
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:36,200
Speaker 1: In that in and of itself is exceptional, and I

24
00:01:36,240 --> 00:01:39,920
Speaker 1: think gives her a rich set of perspectives about the

25
00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:42,640
Speaker 1: work of judging, in particularly the kinds of cases that

26
00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:45,200
Speaker 1: work their way through the federal court. You it's quite

27
00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:48,120
Speaker 1: common now, I'm almost I think all but maybe Justice Hagan,

28
00:01:48,360 --> 00:01:51,520
Speaker 1: of the current justices, had experienced as a circuit judge,

29
00:01:51,560 --> 00:01:54,160
Speaker 1: so seeing cases that made their way to Screme Court

30
00:01:54,320 --> 00:01:57,920
Speaker 1: from the appellate stage. But Justice Jackson both clerked the

31
00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:00,800
Speaker 1: District Court, the Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court, and

32
00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:03,760
Speaker 1: then had a pretty extensive period as a district judge,

33
00:02:03,920 --> 00:02:06,280
Speaker 1: then a short period as a circuit judge. And so

34
00:02:06,680 --> 00:02:09,560
Speaker 1: that piece, even apart from her time as a federal

35
00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:12,680
Speaker 1: public defender and serving on the Sentencing Commission, that piece

36
00:02:12,720 --> 00:02:16,520
Speaker 1: already not only distinguishes her from her colleagues, but I

37
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:20,360
Speaker 1: think particularly gives her a set of insights and perhaps

38
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:23,160
Speaker 1: an extra bit of confidence in kind of knowing how

39
00:02:23,560 --> 00:02:26,800
Speaker 1: federal courts deal with the range of issues at every level.

40
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:28,919
Speaker 1: And then the piece that really carries over to the

41
00:02:28,919 --> 00:02:31,760
Speaker 1: criminal justice space that I work in, is that she

42
00:02:31,840 --> 00:02:35,120
Speaker 1: has a background as a federal public defender, one of

43
00:02:35,120 --> 00:02:38,880
Speaker 1: the few justices who in the Court's entire history have

44
00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:41,440
Speaker 1: had a role in that respect, and then also served

45
00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:43,680
Speaker 1: a number of years on the U. S Sentencing Commission

46
00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:47,280
Speaker 1: and so particularly looked at sentencing practice and policy that way.

47
00:02:47,280 --> 00:02:49,720
Speaker 1: And so you've got to add all that up. And

48
00:02:49,760 --> 00:02:52,240
Speaker 1: even though she's the youngest justice, she's in some sense

49
00:02:52,280 --> 00:02:55,840
Speaker 1: the most experience in sort of watching the federal justice

50
00:02:55,880 --> 00:03:00,400
Speaker 1: system function from all these different perspectives. Her predecessor, she's saying,

51
00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:03,840
Speaker 1: just as Stephen Bryer, and everyone knows him as a

52
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:09,080
Speaker 1: liberal justice, but he wasn't necessarily so liberal in criminal

53
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:11,919
Speaker 1: defense matters, was he? That's right? I mean, I think

54
00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:13,840
Speaker 1: over the course of you know, a couple decades on

55
00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:16,160
Speaker 1: the court, you could point to, Oh, these were some

56
00:03:16,360 --> 00:03:19,120
Speaker 1: very liberal positions he had on some criminal justice matters.

57
00:03:19,120 --> 00:03:21,440
Speaker 1: And the most obvious one there might be the death penalty,

58
00:03:21,480 --> 00:03:23,960
Speaker 1: where he seemed, especially in his later years, to be

59
00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:25,760
Speaker 1: trying to build an argument that the way the death

60
00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:28,639
Speaker 1: penalty functions our country is unconstitutional. But then you look

61
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:31,639
Speaker 1: at some other matters sometimes his rulings on Fourth Amendments

62
00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:34,680
Speaker 1: for concesure issues, his rulings on the right to jury

63
00:03:34,720 --> 00:03:37,560
Speaker 1: trials under the Sixth Amendments, some other issues as well.

64
00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:41,720
Speaker 1: He was much more inclined to be leaning towards the prosecution,

65
00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:44,920
Speaker 1: or at least in some sense was maybe valuably unpredictable,

66
00:03:45,040 --> 00:03:47,040
Speaker 1: very eager to kind of hear the pros and cons.

67
00:03:47,080 --> 00:03:49,120
Speaker 1: But but often that was kind of styled in the

68
00:03:49,120 --> 00:03:52,720
Speaker 1: context of being a very pragmatic justice who was very

69
00:03:52,760 --> 00:03:56,400
Speaker 1: concerned about whether and how any limits on law enforcement

70
00:03:56,400 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 1: and he limits on prosecutors might function to undermine some

71
00:04:01,160 --> 00:04:03,480
Speaker 1: broader goals in the criminal justice system. And so in

72
00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:06,040
Speaker 1: many respects, every justice is open minded to these issues.

73
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:09,520
Speaker 1: But I think definitely Justice Prior, especially compared more recently

74
00:04:09,560 --> 00:04:13,720
Speaker 1: to Justice sodomy Or, was less likely to be critical

75
00:04:13,840 --> 00:04:16,160
Speaker 1: or at least questioning of a lot of assertions that

76
00:04:16,360 --> 00:04:18,480
Speaker 1: you couldn't limit the police this way or you couldn't

77
00:04:18,520 --> 00:04:21,320
Speaker 1: restrict trial rights that way without having a found impact

78
00:04:21,360 --> 00:04:24,039
Speaker 1: on the operation of the criminal justice system. Tell us

79
00:04:24,080 --> 00:04:27,839
Speaker 1: about the case of Dante McClinton, a case of the

80
00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:32,160
Speaker 1: justices are considering whether or not they'll take so this

81
00:04:32,200 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 1: case involved the young man who got involved with a

82
00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:40,560
Speaker 1: number of other young men and they robbed a pharmacy. Sadly,

83
00:04:40,680 --> 00:04:42,640
Speaker 1: in the course of doing so, garrid and awful lot

84
00:04:42,640 --> 00:04:46,159
Speaker 1: of people there, but didn't directly hurt anybody and only

85
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:49,120
Speaker 1: were able to get away with a few hundred dollars. Then,

86
00:04:49,200 --> 00:04:51,960
Speaker 1: in the course of dividing up the loot that they

87
00:04:52,000 --> 00:04:54,400
Speaker 1: got and kind of fighting over it, seems how the

88
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:58,400
Speaker 1: robbery didn't go well, one of the robbers involved got

89
00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:02,600
Speaker 1: shot and shot and killed. And the prosecution's claim was

90
00:05:02,640 --> 00:05:05,920
Speaker 1: that Mr McClinton was the shooter and was guilty of

91
00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:08,960
Speaker 1: speaking to try to rob his cohort of his part

92
00:05:08,960 --> 00:05:11,000
Speaker 1: of the loot, and when he couldn't get it, he

93
00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:14,320
Speaker 1: then shot this individual ultimately, and this is a key

94
00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:17,160
Speaker 1: part of the story. The jury didn't agree with that theory,

95
00:05:17,279 --> 00:05:20,000
Speaker 1: and there was evidence presented a trial that suggested somebody

96
00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:22,719
Speaker 1: else may have done that, and the details were unclear.

97
00:05:22,960 --> 00:05:25,640
Speaker 1: What was clear is this Hurry was not convinced was

98
00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:29,440
Speaker 1: not certain that Mr McClinton should be held accountable because

99
00:05:29,440 --> 00:05:32,440
Speaker 1: they acquitted him on the charges at trial that related

100
00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:34,920
Speaker 1: to the other young man being shot and killed. When

101
00:05:35,120 --> 00:05:38,359
Speaker 1: the case got to sentence thing. However, the government said, hey, judge,

102
00:05:38,400 --> 00:05:40,839
Speaker 1: remember all that evidence he put forward, you know, arguing

103
00:05:40,880 --> 00:05:43,800
Speaker 1: that he was guilty of killing his co conspirator. Well,

104
00:05:43,960 --> 00:05:46,760
Speaker 1: even though the jury acquitted on those counts, we still

105
00:05:46,800 --> 00:05:50,160
Speaker 1: think the evidence should convince you by a preponderance the evidence,

106
00:05:50,160 --> 00:05:53,240
Speaker 1: which is typically the standard applied at sentencing as opposed

107
00:05:53,279 --> 00:05:55,560
Speaker 1: to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied at trial.

108
00:05:55,839 --> 00:05:57,680
Speaker 1: We think you should still be convinced that he was

109
00:05:57,720 --> 00:06:00,480
Speaker 1: responsible for that other young man's death. And so when

110
00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:03,240
Speaker 1: you sentenced him for the robbery that he was convicted of,

111
00:06:03,360 --> 00:06:06,080
Speaker 1: consider also the fact that he is responsible for causing

112
00:06:06,080 --> 00:06:08,240
Speaker 1: this death, that he really is a murderer, even though

113
00:06:08,240 --> 00:06:11,240
Speaker 1: the jury acquitted him on that. So the judge sentenced

114
00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:15,799
Speaker 1: him to twenty years as opposed to the about five

115
00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:19,120
Speaker 1: years he would have gotten if he'd been sentenced just

116
00:06:19,240 --> 00:06:22,880
Speaker 1: for the robbery he was actually convicted of. That's pretty

117
00:06:22,960 --> 00:06:24,880
Speaker 1: much right. And again, exactly what he would have gotten

118
00:06:24,960 --> 00:06:27,440
Speaker 1: for just the robbery could be debated. And this is

119
00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:31,240
Speaker 1: where things get complicated because fundamentally there could be other

120
00:06:31,279 --> 00:06:35,080
Speaker 1: aggravating factors that judge might rely on. But the judge said,

121
00:06:35,279 --> 00:06:37,599
Speaker 1: I think you were responsible for this death. I think

122
00:06:37,640 --> 00:06:40,040
Speaker 1: because of that, I have to increase your guideline range,

123
00:06:40,080 --> 00:06:42,520
Speaker 1: because the guideline range was even in the thirty year

124
00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:45,120
Speaker 1: rain and the judge decided to only I put that

125
00:06:45,160 --> 00:06:48,920
Speaker 1: in air quote give twenty and the rich lo hung

126
00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:52,960
Speaker 1: detailed backstory is there's a case from almost twenty five

127
00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:56,120
Speaker 1: years ago now with the Supreme Court said a judge

128
00:06:56,120 --> 00:06:59,800
Speaker 1: is consideration of evidence, even related to counts on which

129
00:06:59,839 --> 00:07:03,000
Speaker 1: a defendant has been acquitted, doesn't violate to process. And

130
00:07:03,520 --> 00:07:07,200
Speaker 1: that older decision came before some more recent rulings about

131
00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:08,960
Speaker 1: the right to jury trial and the reach of the

132
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:11,640
Speaker 1: sixth Amendment. And so there's been lots of complaints by

133
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:13,600
Speaker 1: by me and lots of other people saying we don't

134
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:17,240
Speaker 1: think that's good precedent anymore, and the McClinton cases being

135
00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:20,200
Speaker 1: pressed as an opportunity for the court to reconsider that

136
00:07:20,320 --> 00:07:23,880
Speaker 1: older precedent. Does this come up often? I would think

137
00:07:23,920 --> 00:07:27,200
Speaker 1: it doesn't. However, since there's a term for this acquitted

138
00:07:27,240 --> 00:07:31,240
Speaker 1: conduct issue, I guess it does. You know, again, it

139
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:34,560
Speaker 1: depends on how you wanted to fine office. So given

140
00:07:34,600 --> 00:07:38,880
Speaker 1: the fact that roughly speaking, nineteen out of twenty cases

141
00:07:38,960 --> 00:07:42,920
Speaker 1: in the federal system are resolved by please then you know,

142
00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:45,240
Speaker 1: in the vast majority of cases this can't come up

143
00:07:45,360 --> 00:07:48,280
Speaker 1: because the case has been resolved by a plea and

144
00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:51,960
Speaker 1: the terms of sentencing are defined by what's been admitted

145
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:54,400
Speaker 1: as part of the police But in a lot of

146
00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:57,720
Speaker 1: cases they go to trial, it's quite common that there's

147
00:07:57,800 --> 00:08:01,200
Speaker 1: multiple counts and that the defendant isn't convicted on all

148
00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:03,680
Speaker 1: the multiple accounts. And there can actually be different variations

149
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:07,040
Speaker 1: on this theme. One variation that's fairly high profile, that's

150
00:08:07,080 --> 00:08:09,400
Speaker 1: not exactly the same issue, but but I made reference

151
00:08:09,440 --> 00:08:12,520
Speaker 1: to it, and some of my writings about these matters

152
00:08:12,760 --> 00:08:16,400
Speaker 1: is the Elippus Holmes. There a Noose trial where there

153
00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:19,600
Speaker 1: were multiple fraud counts brought to the jury. She was

154
00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:21,840
Speaker 1: convicted on a few of them, and then there was

155
00:08:21,880 --> 00:08:24,360
Speaker 1: a hung jury on some of the others, and those

156
00:08:24,400 --> 00:08:27,440
Speaker 1: have now been dismissed because the prosecution said, we don't

157
00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:29,720
Speaker 1: want to bother We've got enough convictions here. We're not

158
00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:32,680
Speaker 1: going to try to retry those those hung counts. But

159
00:08:32,920 --> 00:08:35,280
Speaker 1: one of the reasons the prosecutor feels comfortable doing that

160
00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:39,839
Speaker 1: is under these doctrines there and completely entitled to they

161
00:08:39,960 --> 00:08:42,840
Speaker 1: might even think they're obliged to put forward that evidence

162
00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:46,440
Speaker 1: to the judges sentences. A judge still think that the

163
00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:49,640
Speaker 1: amount of loss or the other aggravating factors under those

164
00:08:49,679 --> 00:08:52,559
Speaker 1: counts that led to a hung jury, we still think

165
00:08:52,559 --> 00:08:55,199
Speaker 1: we proved them close enough for government work, so to speak,

166
00:08:55,320 --> 00:08:58,240
Speaker 1: and that should be part of your calculations as to

167
00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:01,479
Speaker 1: what kind of sentence you should be facing. And there's

168
00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:03,720
Speaker 1: a bunch of other examples like this too. What what

169
00:09:04,280 --> 00:09:09,400
Speaker 1: often very common in the drug settings, which are part

170
00:09:09,400 --> 00:09:11,800
Speaker 1: and parts of about bill at least a quarter is

171
00:09:11,800 --> 00:09:14,839
Speaker 1: not more of the federal cases that get brought, is

172
00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:18,160
Speaker 1: the government will charge the defendant with multiple accounts of

173
00:09:18,240 --> 00:09:21,280
Speaker 1: drug dealing or being part of a broader conspiracy in

174
00:09:21,320 --> 00:09:23,679
Speaker 1: which there was lots and lots of dealing going on.

175
00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:26,800
Speaker 1: If the case goes to trial, again, that's the exception.

176
00:09:26,880 --> 00:09:29,080
Speaker 1: But if the case goes to trial, it's not at

177
00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:32,280
Speaker 1: all uncommon that a jury will reach a mixed verdict. Oh, yes,

178
00:09:32,400 --> 00:09:35,520
Speaker 1: we think the defendant was definitely involved in these five

179
00:09:35,600 --> 00:09:39,640
Speaker 1: transactions where they were personally doing the sales. But you

180
00:09:39,679 --> 00:09:42,760
Speaker 1: say he's also part of these twenty other transactions and

181
00:09:42,800 --> 00:09:45,760
Speaker 1: he says he wasn't. We have a doubt about that

182
00:09:45,800 --> 00:09:48,640
Speaker 1: we're going to quit on those other charges. And then

183
00:09:48,679 --> 00:09:51,679
Speaker 1: still the prosecution can say, they often say in those

184
00:09:51,760 --> 00:09:55,760
Speaker 1: kinds of cases, well, using the preponderance of evidence standard judge,

185
00:09:56,320 --> 00:09:58,600
Speaker 1: we think we put enough evidence the show he was

186
00:09:58,840 --> 00:10:02,160
Speaker 1: connected to these other twenty sales, and so you should

187
00:10:02,240 --> 00:10:05,000
Speaker 1: use the amount of drugs that were involved not just

188
00:10:05,120 --> 00:10:07,400
Speaker 1: in these sales that he was convicted of, but all

189
00:10:07,440 --> 00:10:09,360
Speaker 1: these other sales that we think we have evidence to

190
00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:12,000
Speaker 1: connect into, that all should be part of the guideline

191
00:10:12,040 --> 00:10:15,120
Speaker 1: calculation that drives up the sentence. And that's basically the

192
00:10:15,160 --> 00:10:18,440
Speaker 1: fact pattern that led to a case about ten years ago,

193
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:22,480
Speaker 1: really the same basic issue where the late Justice Scalia

194
00:10:22,679 --> 00:10:26,760
Speaker 1: and Justice Ginsburg joined with Justice Thomas in the sending

195
00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:29,560
Speaker 1: from the denial of Sirt. There was a case called Jones,

196
00:10:29,679 --> 00:10:32,480
Speaker 1: where again it was this drug setting where the prosecution

197
00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:35,560
Speaker 1: claimed the series of defendants were involved in all sorts

198
00:10:35,559 --> 00:10:37,960
Speaker 1: of drug dealings. The jury came back with a very

199
00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:40,560
Speaker 1: mixed and limited verdict, and then the prosecution went back

200
00:10:40,600 --> 00:10:43,280
Speaker 1: to the judge of sentencing and said all the drug

201
00:10:43,320 --> 00:10:46,280
Speaker 1: dealing we are led should be considered for deciding what

202
00:10:46,360 --> 00:10:49,440
Speaker 1: the guideline ranges and the judge concluded at sentencing, Yeah,

203
00:10:49,600 --> 00:10:51,840
Speaker 1: I guess I'm convinced that that's more likely than not,

204
00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:54,720
Speaker 1: and so I've got to drive up the guideline sentencing range,

205
00:10:55,000 --> 00:10:59,280
Speaker 1: which is often, you know, tethered to these quantifiable factors

206
00:10:59,360 --> 00:11:01,920
Speaker 1: like how much drugs are involved or how much loss

207
00:11:02,000 --> 00:11:05,200
Speaker 1: is involved. And that's why this can become not just

208
00:11:05,400 --> 00:11:07,720
Speaker 1: common in the cases that go to trial, but have

209
00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:13,079
Speaker 1: such significant impacts in the length of sentence being recommended

210
00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:15,680
Speaker 1: by the guidelines and the amount of prison time ultimately

211
00:11:15,679 --> 00:11:20,440
Speaker 1: given by judge in that case. In case they needed

212
00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:22,800
Speaker 1: one more vote to take the case, why do you

213
00:11:22,840 --> 00:11:25,640
Speaker 1: think they didn't have the vote of Justice soda Mayor

214
00:11:25,840 --> 00:11:29,200
Speaker 1: or Justice Kagan. Well, thanks for quewing that up, because

215
00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:32,320
Speaker 1: this gets back to our earlier points about Justice Brier

216
00:11:32,679 --> 00:11:38,000
Speaker 1: has been consistently concerned about extending jury trial rights that

217
00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:41,400
Speaker 1: would limit in some respect how judges used their discretion

218
00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:45,840
Speaker 1: as sentences, and so my read on that was always

219
00:11:45,880 --> 00:11:49,760
Speaker 1: the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, even though they might be

220
00:11:49,800 --> 00:11:52,400
Speaker 1: inclined to vote with the defendant in the case like that,

221
00:11:52,800 --> 00:11:56,240
Speaker 1: we're quite concerned about what Justice Brier might think, and

222
00:11:56,880 --> 00:12:00,120
Speaker 1: even was concerned that maybe Justice Brier would convince are

223
00:12:00,160 --> 00:12:02,600
Speaker 1: members of the Court to not want to limit the

224
00:12:02,720 --> 00:12:05,760
Speaker 1: use of acquitted conduct once the case actually got taken up.

225
00:12:05,800 --> 00:12:08,760
Speaker 1: So their instinct maybe was, let's just let this issue

226
00:12:08,760 --> 00:12:10,760
Speaker 1: percolates the more and hope, you know, to get addressed

227
00:12:10,800 --> 00:12:13,040
Speaker 1: some other way. You know. Among the things that's interesting

228
00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:16,840
Speaker 1: on this particular topic is there have been both congressional

229
00:12:17,200 --> 00:12:21,760
Speaker 1: bills to rewrite the sentencing rules in statute to say

230
00:12:21,800 --> 00:12:24,880
Speaker 1: that judges shouldn't consider this kind of acquitted conducts And

231
00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 1: just recently, the newly constituted U S Sentencing Commission has

232
00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:32,480
Speaker 1: indicated that one of their possible priorities for the coming

233
00:12:32,559 --> 00:12:34,920
Speaker 1: year would be to speak to this issue as well.

234
00:12:34,960 --> 00:12:37,560
Speaker 1: And so I think there's an argument to be made

235
00:12:37,640 --> 00:12:39,959
Speaker 1: or more accurately, this is what the Supreme Court is

236
00:12:40,000 --> 00:12:41,920
Speaker 1: likely going to be struggling with, even if they think

237
00:12:41,960 --> 00:12:45,000
Speaker 1: this is a problematic practice. She should we be addressing

238
00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:48,199
Speaker 1: this through broad constitutional rules or is this the kind

239
00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:51,199
Speaker 1: of matter that it makes more sense to envision Congress

240
00:12:51,240 --> 00:12:53,400
Speaker 1: and the Sentencing Commission to dress in the ways that

241
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:56,800
Speaker 1: they're arguably more able to craft nuanced rules to deal with.

242
00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:00,520
Speaker 1: So you need the votes of for justices to take

243
00:13:00,559 --> 00:13:03,680
Speaker 1: the case. Let's say you have Clarence Thomas because he

244
00:13:03,760 --> 00:13:06,839
Speaker 1: was in dissent on the last one. Let's big. You

245
00:13:06,920 --> 00:13:09,800
Speaker 1: never know how these things go right exactly, and so

246
00:13:10,040 --> 00:13:15,120
Speaker 1: you might have Justice Jackson and Justices Soda, Mayor and Kagan. Maybe,

247
00:13:15,160 --> 00:13:17,560
Speaker 1: I actually think, although again this gets to, you know,

248
00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:22,400
Speaker 1: the kind of inside baseball speculations. Justice Gorset has actually

249
00:13:22,440 --> 00:13:26,880
Speaker 1: been one of the most vocal advocates for jury trial rights,

250
00:13:26,960 --> 00:13:29,800
Speaker 1: kind of stepping into the shoes of Justice Scalia, who

251
00:13:29,880 --> 00:13:32,400
Speaker 1: was one of the most vocal ones. So I think

252
00:13:32,760 --> 00:13:35,960
Speaker 1: Justice Corsets might be a fourth vote, maybe a fifth vote,

253
00:13:35,960 --> 00:13:38,480
Speaker 1: depending on how all this comes together. In addition, and

254
00:13:38,520 --> 00:13:42,199
Speaker 1: I think not to be overlooked, Justice Kavanaugh has actually

255
00:13:42,320 --> 00:13:46,400
Speaker 1: written when he was a DC circuit to say that

256
00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:48,280
Speaker 1: he thinks this is a problem and that the Supreme

257
00:13:48,320 --> 00:13:50,600
Speaker 1: Court ought to take it up to kind of clarify things.

258
00:13:50,640 --> 00:13:53,760
Speaker 1: Although that's sometimes easier to say when you're a circuit

259
00:13:54,240 --> 00:13:57,720
Speaker 1: you're telling what other than when you're a justice yourself.

260
00:13:57,880 --> 00:14:02,040
Speaker 1: So you know, I think he's another possible vote. And last,

261
00:14:02,040 --> 00:14:06,160
Speaker 1: but absolutely not least, Chief Justice Roberts also has been

262
00:14:06,800 --> 00:14:11,480
Speaker 1: relatively quiet but not disengaged justice with respect to some

263
00:14:11,559 --> 00:14:14,800
Speaker 1: of these jury trial right issues. And so I think

264
00:14:15,000 --> 00:14:17,760
Speaker 1: there's reasons to speculate there could be ample votes. But

265
00:14:17,800 --> 00:14:20,000
Speaker 1: I also think there's a way one could say, yeah,

266
00:14:20,080 --> 00:14:22,320
Speaker 1: but you know what, Now it looks like Congress is

267
00:14:22,480 --> 00:14:24,480
Speaker 1: interested in maybe addressing this. Now it looks like the

268
00:14:24,520 --> 00:14:27,280
Speaker 1: centen In Commission is interested in addressing this. If we

269
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:30,720
Speaker 1: jump in, that will disrupt that process, or at least

270
00:14:30,760 --> 00:14:33,960
Speaker 1: we're worried maybe we can't craft a rule as a

271
00:14:33,960 --> 00:14:37,040
Speaker 1: matter of constitutional law that will be as nuanced and

272
00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:40,320
Speaker 1: helpful as the development of a rule through some other process,

273
00:14:40,760 --> 00:14:43,680
Speaker 1: legislative or commission based. It's never easy to figure out

274
00:14:43,720 --> 00:14:46,400
Speaker 1: whether or not the court is going to take a case,

275
00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:50,359
Speaker 1: is it? Thanks so much, Doug? That's Ohio State University

276
00:14:50,440 --> 00:14:57,760
Speaker 1: law professor Douglas Berman. Twenty million, million, million, You get

277
00:14:57,760 --> 00:14:59,520
Speaker 1: a million, You got hunter, a million, You got a

278
00:14:59,520 --> 00:15:03,880
Speaker 1: famili On his Info War show, Alex Jones mocked the

279
00:15:03,920 --> 00:15:07,760
Speaker 1: nearly one billion dollar jury verdict against him for spreading

280
00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:10,880
Speaker 1: the myth that the deadliest school shooting in US history

281
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:15,000
Speaker 1: never happened, saying he could keep the Sandy Hook families

282
00:15:15,080 --> 00:15:19,000
Speaker 1: in court for years. People actually they're getting money. Getting

283
00:15:19,000 --> 00:15:21,520
Speaker 1: the verdict is only the first hurdle in a long

284
00:15:21,640 --> 00:15:25,520
Speaker 1: legal process for the families, one complicated by the fact

285
00:15:25,560 --> 00:15:29,520
Speaker 1: that Jones company, Free Speed Systems, has filed for bankruptcy.

286
00:15:29,920 --> 00:15:33,960
Speaker 1: Joining me is bankruptcy attorney Nicholas Kroft a Fox Rothschild.

287
00:15:34,520 --> 00:15:38,320
Speaker 1: This verdict n five million and then another fifty million

288
00:15:38,400 --> 00:15:43,840
Speaker 1: in Texas. How often are these huge verdicts collected? Well,

289
00:15:43,840 --> 00:15:46,160
Speaker 1: I mean it's tough when you have a bankruptcy case

290
00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:48,960
Speaker 1: intervening in particularly here we have a bankrupcy case that

291
00:15:49,080 --> 00:15:53,040
Speaker 1: was filed kind of strategically before these judgments were entered.

292
00:15:53,400 --> 00:15:56,240
Speaker 1: When you have a billion dollar judgment, it's pretty tough

293
00:15:56,360 --> 00:15:58,600
Speaker 1: to collect on it. And certainly there's a lot of

294
00:15:58,640 --> 00:16:01,400
Speaker 1: motivation ox Jones his part to come up with as

295
00:16:01,440 --> 00:16:05,440
Speaker 1: many maneuverings in court as possible, you know, appropriate or

296
00:16:05,480 --> 00:16:09,320
Speaker 1: not to delay payment on these debts, and these makeups

297
00:16:09,320 --> 00:16:11,520
Speaker 1: to cases are certainly kind of part of that strategy

298
00:16:11,800 --> 00:16:14,560
Speaker 1: to prolong payment and to at least come up with

299
00:16:14,560 --> 00:16:18,120
Speaker 1: a narrative that Free Speech System doesn't have the money

300
00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:22,600
Speaker 1: for it. He's personally liable for the damages if he

301
00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:25,240
Speaker 1: doesn't file for personal bankruptcy, and he claims he has

302
00:16:25,320 --> 00:16:27,960
Speaker 1: less than two million to his name. If he doesn't

303
00:16:28,000 --> 00:16:31,680
Speaker 1: file for personal bankruptcy, can the plaintiffs continue to go

304
00:16:31,800 --> 00:16:35,440
Speaker 1: after him, you know, chase down his assets, go after

305
00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:38,400
Speaker 1: his wages. Yeah, they'll be able to chase him to

306
00:16:38,440 --> 00:16:40,960
Speaker 1: the ends of the earth if they want to. It's

307
00:16:41,000 --> 00:16:43,160
Speaker 1: not kind of the typical judgment that you'd see in

308
00:16:43,200 --> 00:16:46,200
Speaker 1: a torque case where someone is injured incurring medical bills,

309
00:16:46,480 --> 00:16:49,120
Speaker 1: hospital bills that need to get paid. With this judgment,

310
00:16:49,400 --> 00:16:51,280
Speaker 1: you know, there is a little bit more flexibility on

311
00:16:51,320 --> 00:16:53,760
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs part to sit around and wait for Alex

312
00:16:53,840 --> 00:16:56,480
Speaker 1: Jones to start coming up with the money. But again,

313
00:16:56,800 --> 00:16:59,320
Speaker 1: Alex Jon's is going to be motivated to continue trying

314
00:16:59,360 --> 00:17:02,040
Speaker 1: to come up with it's legal fictions that suggests that

315
00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:04,400
Speaker 1: he has no money to pay a judgment. Let's talk

316
00:17:04,400 --> 00:17:08,679
Speaker 1: about the bankruptcy proceedings at his company, Free Speech Systems.

317
00:17:09,560 --> 00:17:12,879
Speaker 1: Is in what stage are they in the bankruptcy proceedings?

318
00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:16,320
Speaker 1: You know, they've they've kind of come to an interesting stage,

319
00:17:16,400 --> 00:17:18,920
Speaker 1: particularly for sub chapter five, And if you don't mind

320
00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:22,679
Speaker 1: them kind of quickly go into just for context, what

321
00:17:22,800 --> 00:17:26,560
Speaker 1: sub chapter five is so so in Congress enacted this

322
00:17:26,680 --> 00:17:30,200
Speaker 1: new sub chapter to Chapter eleven. Chapter eleven's what we're

323
00:17:30,240 --> 00:17:34,080
Speaker 1: all familiar with as a business bankruptcy that's reorganized. What

324
00:17:34,119 --> 00:17:36,880
Speaker 1: has happened over the years is Chapter eleven has become

325
00:17:37,000 --> 00:17:40,200
Speaker 1: very expensive and very time consuming for small mom and

326
00:17:40,280 --> 00:17:43,479
Speaker 1: pop businesses and small mom and pop business owners. So

327
00:17:43,520 --> 00:17:46,080
Speaker 1: what Congress came up with was sub Chapter five, which

328
00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:49,440
Speaker 1: created this kind of expedited proceeding for mom and pop

329
00:17:49,480 --> 00:17:53,879
Speaker 1: businesses to quickly move through something really similar to a

330
00:17:54,240 --> 00:17:57,280
Speaker 1: Chapter eleven but within only a couple of months. And

331
00:17:57,520 --> 00:17:59,920
Speaker 1: the way that Congress came up with that was they

332
00:18:00,000 --> 00:18:02,560
Speaker 1: eliminated some of the oversight that you would typically see

333
00:18:02,560 --> 00:18:05,119
Speaker 1: in the Chapter eleven case. A big one is the

334
00:18:05,119 --> 00:18:08,400
Speaker 1: Committee of Unsecured Creditors, which is this body that kind

335
00:18:08,400 --> 00:18:11,080
Speaker 1: of solves the collective action problem of a bunch of

336
00:18:11,119 --> 00:18:15,600
Speaker 1: small unsecured creditors. They get to help supervise the case

337
00:18:15,680 --> 00:18:18,359
Speaker 1: and appear in the case and and monitor the debtic

338
00:18:18,480 --> 00:18:20,919
Speaker 1: rout it. That's been eliminated in sub Chapter five and

339
00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:23,400
Speaker 1: replaced with a sub Chapter five trustee that has very

340
00:18:23,480 --> 00:18:26,959
Speaker 1: limited oversight roles at the outset, just really to kind

341
00:18:26,960 --> 00:18:30,480
Speaker 1: of help shepherd the plan along to confirmation, and so

342
00:18:30,560 --> 00:18:34,480
Speaker 1: alex Jones used sub Chapter five to file Free Speech

343
00:18:34,520 --> 00:18:39,520
Speaker 1: Systems bankruptcy and that eliminated the oversight of, you know,

344
00:18:39,600 --> 00:18:42,800
Speaker 1: a creditors committee which would probably be populated by these

345
00:18:43,000 --> 00:18:45,840
Speaker 1: victims because they have significant At the time, they had

346
00:18:45,880 --> 00:18:49,920
Speaker 1: significant contingent judgments. And the timing of when alex Jones

347
00:18:49,960 --> 00:18:53,399
Speaker 1: filed Free Speech Systems bankruptcy case is really important. He

348
00:18:53,440 --> 00:18:57,040
Speaker 1: did it before the judgments were entered. Now, again, this

349
00:18:57,119 --> 00:18:59,760
Speaker 1: is really only a provision of the Bankrupty Code intended

350
00:18:59,800 --> 00:19:02,080
Speaker 1: for small mom and pop businesses. But what we've learned

351
00:19:02,240 --> 00:19:06,640
Speaker 1: is Free Speech Systems generates a significant amount of revenue annually.

352
00:19:06,960 --> 00:19:08,639
Speaker 1: So the way that he was able to sneak into

353
00:19:08,680 --> 00:19:11,399
Speaker 1: sub Chapter five was one these massive judgments hadn't been

354
00:19:11,480 --> 00:19:14,040
Speaker 1: entered yet, so those didn't count against him for the

355
00:19:14,119 --> 00:19:17,639
Speaker 1: debt cap that Congress placed on following some Chapter five bankruptcy.

356
00:19:18,040 --> 00:19:20,160
Speaker 1: You can only have a company that has seven point

357
00:19:20,280 --> 00:19:22,760
Speaker 1: five million dollars worth of debt that files. Obviously, these

358
00:19:22,800 --> 00:19:25,120
Speaker 1: judgments were much more significant, but they hadn't been entered yet.

359
00:19:25,200 --> 00:19:28,719
Speaker 1: And the other kind of machination that alex Jones had

360
00:19:28,720 --> 00:19:31,240
Speaker 1: worked out along the way is there's this other n

361
00:19:31,400 --> 00:19:34,560
Speaker 1: p p QPR that he owns, and essentially what p

362
00:19:34,720 --> 00:19:39,120
Speaker 1: QPR does is acts as a middleman between Alex Jones's

363
00:19:39,320 --> 00:19:43,800
Speaker 1: podcasting company, free Speech Systems, and the companies from which

364
00:19:43,840 --> 00:19:46,720
Speaker 1: Free Speech Systems buys all the kind of supplements that

365
00:19:46,800 --> 00:19:49,879
Speaker 1: they sell on the Alex Jones and Worse podcast That

366
00:19:50,000 --> 00:19:52,600
Speaker 1: is a tremendous source of their revenue. Now, it's pretty

367
00:19:52,600 --> 00:19:56,840
Speaker 1: contrived what Free Speech Systems alleged to have occurred between

368
00:19:56,880 --> 00:20:00,600
Speaker 1: p QPR in itself, but apparently p QPR, without their

369
00:20:00,600 --> 00:20:04,000
Speaker 1: middle manning, and Free Speech Systems wracked up a significant

370
00:20:04,000 --> 00:20:07,680
Speaker 1: amount of debt for these middle manning services. And so

371
00:20:07,760 --> 00:20:11,200
Speaker 1: just before Free Speech Systems filed bankruptcy, it entered into

372
00:20:11,280 --> 00:20:15,760
Speaker 1: a secured loan with p QPR in the millions of

373
00:20:15,760 --> 00:20:19,240
Speaker 1: dollars range. And what Free Speech Systems claims is well,

374
00:20:19,240 --> 00:20:22,520
Speaker 1: this was a way to create a repayment plan to

375
00:20:22,680 --> 00:20:26,080
Speaker 1: this other entity that's been doing services for us. The

376
00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:29,720
Speaker 1: contrived part of it looks like it was created to

377
00:20:30,040 --> 00:20:33,360
Speaker 1: at least form an argument that Hay, free Speech Systems

378
00:20:33,520 --> 00:20:37,919
Speaker 1: is insolvent and judgment proof the debt between p QPR

379
00:20:37,960 --> 00:20:41,800
Speaker 1: and Free Speech Systems. These affiliate entities is not counted

380
00:20:41,800 --> 00:20:44,159
Speaker 1: towards the debt limit. So this is how a company

381
00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:46,400
Speaker 1: with a lot of debt and a lot of revenue

382
00:20:46,960 --> 00:20:51,359
Speaker 1: was able to sneak in to this new provision of

383
00:20:51,400 --> 00:20:55,760
Speaker 1: the bankruptcy code that doesn't automatically have the same kind

384
00:20:55,760 --> 00:20:59,120
Speaker 1: of oversight systems in place that a regular Chapter eleven

385
00:20:59,200 --> 00:21:02,480
Speaker 1: case would have. The Sandy Hook families have intervened in

386
00:21:02,520 --> 00:21:07,200
Speaker 1: the bankruptcy case. They accused Jones of burdening his company,

387
00:21:07,280 --> 00:21:12,160
Speaker 1: Free Speech Systems with fifty four million dollars in concocted debt.

388
00:21:12,800 --> 00:21:15,760
Speaker 1: When will those claims be settled? Well, part of the

389
00:21:15,760 --> 00:21:18,600
Speaker 1: early litigation of the bankruptcy case was the victim saying, hey,

390
00:21:18,640 --> 00:21:22,919
Speaker 1: this debt with PQPR is concocted, and it's going to

391
00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:25,520
Speaker 1: form the basis of an argument that Free Speech Systems

392
00:21:25,640 --> 00:21:29,320
Speaker 1: is insolvent and judgment proof. So the victims said to

393
00:21:29,359 --> 00:21:32,720
Speaker 1: the bankruptcy court, look, you know they filed their schedules

394
00:21:32,720 --> 00:21:36,120
Speaker 1: and their financial disclosures free Speech Systems dead, indicating these

395
00:21:36,160 --> 00:21:40,160
Speaker 1: debts were legitimate. The only person in charge of confirming

396
00:21:40,160 --> 00:21:43,800
Speaker 1: weather their legitimate is Alex Jones and his cronies who

397
00:21:43,800 --> 00:21:48,080
Speaker 1: are running this business. We don't trust that. Please appoint

398
00:21:48,119 --> 00:21:51,200
Speaker 1: a committee in this case to look into this, and

399
00:21:51,240 --> 00:21:54,760
Speaker 1: the court kind of took a middle ground approach. Instead

400
00:21:54,760 --> 00:21:56,840
Speaker 1: of appointing a committee, The court said, what I'm gonna

401
00:21:56,840 --> 00:21:58,480
Speaker 1: do if I already have a sub chapter of five

402
00:21:58,520 --> 00:22:01,679
Speaker 1: trustee who is a disinterested person, I'm going to expand

403
00:22:01,840 --> 00:22:04,280
Speaker 1: the scope of her and I'm going to have her

404
00:22:04,320 --> 00:22:07,600
Speaker 1: investigate whether or not these debts actually are legitimate. And

405
00:22:07,680 --> 00:22:09,800
Speaker 1: so the debtors are going to have to respond to

406
00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:13,880
Speaker 1: document request the trustee has issued. The bankruptcy court has

407
00:22:13,920 --> 00:22:18,320
Speaker 1: kind of pumped the brakes on moving the bankruptcy process forward,

408
00:22:18,840 --> 00:22:23,919
Speaker 1: so this independent and kind of unusual investigation can take place.

409
00:22:24,200 --> 00:22:27,240
Speaker 1: Because the bankruptcy court seriously doubt of the legitimacy of

410
00:22:27,359 --> 00:22:32,560
Speaker 1: those debts, could the bankruptcy court eventually order liquidation of

411
00:22:32,920 --> 00:22:35,760
Speaker 1: Jones's business? I don't think the bankruptcy court could or

412
00:22:35,800 --> 00:22:40,000
Speaker 1: would necessarily order a liquidation. But the position that the

413
00:22:40,040 --> 00:22:43,400
Speaker 1: debtor finds himself and now is a little difficult because

414
00:22:43,680 --> 00:22:46,920
Speaker 1: we now have an independent investigation into the legitimacy of

415
00:22:47,040 --> 00:22:50,600
Speaker 1: this major secured debt, and if the investigation determines that

416
00:22:50,680 --> 00:22:53,679
Speaker 1: this debt is not legitimate. The gambit that seems to

417
00:22:53,680 --> 00:22:56,280
Speaker 1: have motivated this bankruptcy filing in the first place of

418
00:22:56,320 --> 00:23:00,439
Speaker 1: an otherwise healthy company before the judgments were entered kind

419
00:23:00,480 --> 00:23:04,000
Speaker 1: of evaporates, and then you're left with a debtor under

420
00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:07,280
Speaker 1: bankruptcy court supervision that is required to file a plan

421
00:23:07,680 --> 00:23:11,000
Speaker 1: that pays creditors in some way, at least with revenue

422
00:23:11,000 --> 00:23:14,199
Speaker 1: over the next five years. And you don't have this

423
00:23:14,280 --> 00:23:17,439
Speaker 1: kind of manufactured debt to serve as an argument that

424
00:23:17,800 --> 00:23:19,760
Speaker 1: the only entity that can get paid is an Alex

425
00:23:19,840 --> 00:23:22,040
Speaker 1: Jones affiliate. But debtor would then have to contend with

426
00:23:22,080 --> 00:23:25,240
Speaker 1: the fact that it's able to and obligated to pay

427
00:23:25,320 --> 00:23:28,439
Speaker 1: these judgments, at least in part. The interesting problem for

428
00:23:28,680 --> 00:23:31,520
Speaker 1: Free speech Systems is its revenue is based on Alex

429
00:23:31,600 --> 00:23:36,240
Speaker 1: Jones podcasting, and nobody can force Alex Jones to continue

430
00:23:36,240 --> 00:23:40,240
Speaker 1: podcasting for free speech systems. So one of the significant

431
00:23:40,280 --> 00:23:43,720
Speaker 1: points of leverage the debtor has is if Alex Jones says, look,

432
00:23:43,880 --> 00:23:46,479
Speaker 1: I'm not podcasting for Free Speech Systems anymore, you can

433
00:23:46,520 --> 00:23:48,760
Speaker 1: have the liquidation value of the company, which is probably

434
00:23:48,800 --> 00:23:50,679
Speaker 1: not going to be significant since they don't really have

435
00:23:50,760 --> 00:23:55,280
Speaker 1: significant assets. Could he then podcast for a different company. Yeah,

436
00:23:55,280 --> 00:23:58,359
Speaker 1: he could. I think that there would be significant arguments

437
00:23:58,480 --> 00:24:01,320
Speaker 1: that this company would essentially end up being an alter

438
00:24:01,440 --> 00:24:05,439
Speaker 1: ego of free speech systems. But the problem is that

439
00:24:05,600 --> 00:24:10,240
Speaker 1: just creates more litigation, more delay, and more time investigating

440
00:24:10,680 --> 00:24:13,840
Speaker 1: this kind of web of companies that Alex Jones has

441
00:24:13,880 --> 00:24:16,639
Speaker 1: built up. There's a separate question that you also raised

442
00:24:16,680 --> 00:24:20,000
Speaker 1: about his own personal liability if he's continuing to generate

443
00:24:20,240 --> 00:24:23,760
Speaker 1: income that might be a source of collection against him personally.

444
00:24:24,119 --> 00:24:27,040
Speaker 1: One thing is sure a lot more litigation ahead. Thanks Nick.

445
00:24:27,359 --> 00:24:30,960
Speaker 1: That's Nicholas cow Rop a Fox roth Child, and that's

446
00:24:30,960 --> 00:24:33,720
Speaker 1: it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

447
00:24:33,760 --> 00:24:36,000
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news by listening

448
00:24:36,000 --> 00:24:39,800
Speaker 1: to our Bloomberg Law podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts.

449
00:24:39,960 --> 00:24:42,480
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso, and you're listening to Bloomberg