NFL's Big Game, Sarah Palin Vs NY Times, Remington and Sandy Hook, and 2 hate Crimes back in the news

As we go out wall warrior show and revisit you in the New York Times. That case came to a conclusion this week. We also look at how Wilmington agreed to a settlement with some of the families affected by Sandy Hook and we got several federal cases going at the same time so we'll talk about that now. The outlaw lawyers Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer your house.

You can find that Whitaker and Hamer law firm of the managing partners there. They are practicing attorneys here in the great state of North Carolina 46 combined years experience between these two and they have offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton Goldsborough, Fuquay Marina and Gastonia throw a rock you're going to hit an office pretty much now if you got a legal situation going on in your life and you got questions, I got a number for you jot this down 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186 leave your contact information will be about what the calls about an attorney with work and Hamer will be in touch.

You can always email your questions to the show questions@theoutlawlawyer.com will get to those in future programs and always check the website out the outlaw lawyer.com gentleman you got a lot on the plate today. I see the New York Times has made the show. Is this the Wardell decision they purchased Wardell and a lot of people are very into this game is that we were talking about the New York Times what became his name is awesome that that's the that's the American dream is At that game together why this is un-American right now. He's from London or whatever but anyway very simple game. Very easy to play and only takes a couple minutes every day. He sold it for a day and say what it was but it's deftly over a million. He said it was like six figures or whatever you sold it.

What more could you Joseph you play the game you play the game. Joshua I don't play the game.

I seen it, I see the people posting it, but I'm busy doing show prep man I'm dedicated to this program and I don't have time for games and it's not the truth.

I don't know I may have never really you know you you see the people posting about it.

I understand it's a game I've never cared to look into it more. Maybe I should man your speech this morning was a good advertisement for it. I think I'm to go. I am a go check it out now we know. I have a subscription set this to the New York Times and just digital eggs to get the Sunday New York Times but I get old school man's iced Sunday New York Times got delivered and you know is really sick newspaper. I like holding a newspaper and like flipping through it, but not with the kids in the sports in the church and everything else I'd have time to time to do it, but one of things Wardell did you know when the New York Times bought a house like that's all I can understand investment but he got me back paying it play in the other New York Times wargames. They have like the many crossword's other stuff so brilliant a brilliant tactical move by the New York Times on that one, but that's like were glossing over the most important thing that has happened in 2022. That is the Super Bowl halftime show. Would you think about that Joe me.

I mean, as it was right up my alley man was right, but I think it was made for my demographic.

My age range lot of nostalgia back to my earlier note high school middle school that that era of my life and I really enjoyed it. Man, that's just me personally that, I'll chime into. I really enjoyed it. I mean it.

Yeah it was really well done. You know, just I like the representation long overdue. I just there in LA it it was perfect. Yes, and I took from it.

I was really excited about it. I'm in my what I guess. But depending on how you look at it mid to late 40s and so a lot of the jury stoop stuff was right in my high school time and but yeah it was it was that the cassette was good the way they did. It was good. I just enjoyed my wife mentioned when a window when Drake came up and then snooped came of age genuinely look happy to be there unites look like it was fantastic, but this is what I go back to you how we rank these zoning is too soon them to do it now. Maybe in a month or two opposite does it beat the Michael Jackson halftime show.

That's tough when I was given the Daniel has man I you know, here's the thing I'm not.

I enjoyed it greatly.

Like I really enjoyed I was cheese and the whole time and literally the whole time cheese and smile on my face. Not a huge not the biggest Mary J Blodgett and inch. I think she did.

She did a good job but that yes any nothing is more like a subjective personal preference type of thing, but right right you know and and that was a brief little snippet of it but but that that would that would be a detriment to the overall show. If you're looking at it as compared to that the Michael Jackson I got asked you when 50 cent came out of the ceiling to jump on the pole and just our dancing man.

I started laughing because I was thinking this is what I thought, for I was like that's quick descent. I was, yet I was eking out a little bit but I was thinking man. He, his body type is gotten – body type is less old, 50 cent, and more. Now all I could think about was me hanging upside down dad by the student old and I could just fight if I could feel the blood rushing through my head and like I got pass out and fall, you have to get mouth-to-mouth from a backup dancer, but I we were all in that category, but there there's a rumor. I can't prove it, but he's put in for name change. Full dollar will I don't understand what you just on the duration of the whole time.

I really only 20 minutes.

You know, I just could restrict the whole time I did anything. We need all the other I actually like Mary J Blodgett you know I am not a big 50 cent guy is a little bit past my prime, but just recently built, nothing has been fantastic and I love the whole show really, really did… They did a fantastic job. Love the aerial shot of LA South.

It is an awesome set that was an awesome set idea. They did a really good job with the set, but well I did actually I watch the game. I made it through the whole game. I stayed awake the whole time, which you remember who played in the game.

You does close game, you wouldn't have to several times – you can't ask you to ask for much more. My kids were up.

They all enjoyed it and they're old enough now to come to stay engaged with it, so it was a good family while family fun, but what I don't even remember what was the actual on them again like the guys on the one that I was on that I think of it open at this but the last I looked at it. It was Rams -4 and so it was clear it was close. Man I thought I if I would've bet on this game. I would've taken the bingo spread which would one and and also I had a weird feeling that it was gonna be Rams first-half bingo second-half you to the Bengals played very well in the second half had a lot of comebacks and I thought whenever whenever you saw BJ hurt his knee noncontact injury. You could tell it was it was bad. I thought that was it. Man I thought the Bengals were gonna end up running away with it, but I credit to the Rams man for fighting back for gotten it out.

Questionable. I think it was fairly well officiated. I think it was the one questionable call on the holding call on Cooper couple and they were down the red zone, but other than that I think the rest of the penalties on that last travel pretty legit. Overall, it's hard to complain, as it was an entertaining game. Yeah, I didn't. My with my wife and my kids get really into the commercials.

I don't really pay that much attention to the commercials, but by his there's a good couple. One of those what people said. But all in all it seemed like he had everything you wanted to get some good commercials really good halftime show an actual good game is pretty pretty resounding successful Super Bowl night. I totally agree in your week window watching some of the some the commercials. I didn't get them all in the down but Doritos at the did really well in the Mick Alter enjoyed the know Peyton Manning Serena Brooks Enjoyed them very well. You know we always do. We always talk about sports a little bit but now down to brass tacks down to the actual legal things we want to talk about and so we need to follow up. We talk about Palin. The New York Times, the Sarah Palin had sued the New York Times for reliable defamation in print and wheat we had a lot to say about that on the last show and then jury came back that a couple things happen, but the jury came back Tuesday and so that was that was dismissible talk more about that in the big story they just hit earlier this week how the blue to me. I'd forgotten that it was even there was an active litigation, but that some of the families affected by the if you call the Sandy Hook tragedy or the scene and call the Sandy Hook massacre, but the deathly unfortunate event at the Sandy Hook elementary school. Some of those families had been suing the manufacturer of the weapon that was used which is Remington Annette settle for's $73 million as I was a big settlement, not to talk about their and then weave God's to federal hate crime cases underway one in Minnesota one down in Georgia I believe. But our intake of others to just federal hate crimes in double jeopardy and things like that so a lot of a lot of meaty legal things to talk about all right. The large Monroe on here Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer your host. They are the managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer law firm there also pricing attorneys here in North Carolina 46 combined years experience and we tell you every single show they have offices everywhere.

Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro for quavering and Gastonia. If you have a legal situation you got questions you can call this number 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186 and just leave contact information briefly what the call is about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch.

You can also email your questions to the show questions@theoutlawlawyer.com will take a look and will answer them on future programs and check out the website, the outlaw lawyer.com were back with Palin versus the New York Times that's coming up next and and Gastonia. They are pricing attorneys here in the great state of North Carolina to got any questions on the legal side something you're going through you call this number 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186 and leave your contact information briefly with calls about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will return your call promptly. Also, you can email your questions to the show questions@theoutlawlawyer.com Palin versus the New York Times we start there more in the this is this one that paid a lot of attention to.

We talked about last week. I will rehash it too much, but what I'm saying to journalism background practicing attorney here in North Carolina so this is the system that was very interesting to me.

Just a quick recap of Sarah Palin.

I had been the target of a editorial in the New York Times that basically link her or that she may be to blame for some of the shooting deaths that happen at an incident where Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona know that a couple folks died and Sarah Palin took offense to that. The New York Times came back after the editorial due to retraction due to an apology and print.

She sued him for reliable defamation defamation and print in the case, wound through the coarsening was 2016 and all that started and so here we are.

The past week or two. We had a trial that was was heavily followed by, all media outlets of the everybody get a good job covering this one and realize how important it was and so we talked about last week while he was in when evidence was going on with Charles going on and then this week I think Monday, the judge came out and I guess there was a I'm assuming I did read this and I'm assuming there was a motion to dismiss the end of the case by the New York Times that he took under advisement and circular world on and so he was given dismiss it is legally speaking, he didn't think Palin's folks had and met their burden and so he still at the jury. The jury is out for the liberation he let the jury deliberated. They came back yesterday with the unanimous verdict that Palin had not met her obligation and Joe. We talked a little bit about actual malice in the Supreme Court case this came from but I guess I just both factually and legally they did meet the bird needed financial malice of this was this was dismiss the New York Times one at this level, but that's just the way was isolated up. I just think it was us a pretty resounding slamdunk and in every issue.

Palin basically lost in every way that you can lose like it wasn't just like a close a close loss. It was like literally slamming the door shut in and just repeatedly slamming it shut over and over. You had a fat when you have the judge tell you had its I'm going to dismiss this and then the jury comes back in a they unanimously rule again it's it's about as resounding of the losses you can have a lawsuit which would you agree yeah I would have been yet incidentally not encouraging that the thing that got me as these don't usually survive early motions to dismiss a wide times in a civil lawsuit. You know, if I file a lawsuit against you, Joe. That never happens was that the staff lawsuit against you.

Your terms will come back and then file we call Toby six motion to dismiss. There's not enough here. Failure to state a claim is always motions you can make like right when somebody sees you and in usually because of the actual malice level that you have to prove a lot of these get thrown out. They don't go to trial rights last week regarding the how interesting it was that this even made it to trial because they usually don't. And then we talked about how the New York Times just has this you have for the past 5060 years they taken the position where fusionists sue us for defamation if you're going to sue us for reliable you're going all the way were not settling these things that you to be fair to go the distance and has worked for them is again the burden as we talked about the burden be real high because we've got competing interest here rights equal, you will the newspaper to have their constitutional right free speech you want them to be able to report the news you want the newspaper newspaper you will the news the media to be able to talk about important people and and if somethings stinks you want them to report that and we also don't want them to act together, take people down.

You don't want the news to have a coordinated effort to defame someone and submit your unit's high standard and I was just I was. I was encouraged that he went to trial but yeah she was were soundly defeated and then I read some of the after the trial thing Palin had some comments of anger. Attorneys at some comments and if you read that I don't know that there in the appeal it.

I thought you know I really only said no matter what happens you know were manipulative that we will Supreme Court to hear this, we want to change we want to change the law or what have you and then that they didn't sound very encouraged after after this, double defeat, so I think the New York Times and and depending on how you view this freedom of press, one here so I guess I guess it's you know it is what it is but it was interesting to watch it unfold.

Yeah, it was interesting and I think we did sweet. You know, we speculated not want to say we speculated because I think we just drew from from Palin's own comments on the things that she had said you leading up to the trial that it was.

This was getting appeal to you know this was something that they were going to to take to that the fullest extent that they could in an effort to really look at how this is looked at, you know they basically want to go back for from what they represented at the time and cannot challenge the underlying standard and and 88. She kinda made it out to be this whole crusade against the quote unquote lame stream media and and really talk to big game about how this was going to be something that they really pursued regardless of what this verdict was they were enough it went against him. They were going with people like you said there gonna take it and try to really push a new way to look at things in a new way to look at this actual malice standard and I couldn't say exactly why it seems like there's been an about-face on that you know the fact that it was such a resounding defeat in the fact that it was unanimous and in the basically just kinda got destroyed.

In that sense. Maybe that was a factor may be I can imagine that this was it a cheap endeavor for her to pursue this lawsuit. I can imagine it, there's no telling how much is cost. At this point I don't know if that was a factor in any in any way, but interesting nonetheless. And you know what Josh, I don't think we made any kind of brick prediction on this other than saying that it was interesting because were very careful about that.

So I think were still perfect on our prediction record and it even if we set something different. I'm not to go back and listen to it's on the outside and I find checking the state while I was on a ride to Joe and then this disability will ring talk about next to after the break, but I was one where the money comes from almost of my sister Sarah Palin. She's a people know she is right. She's a celebrity of some some level we all reckon less so now that she was at one point, I think at one point she was in a very very prominent in the public eye. Very everyone knew she was you couldn't couldn't note not know who she was. I went to say when Tina Fey did Sarah Sarah Palin on Saturday night live but what was that 10 years ago.

Yeah, it was long. It was a long time ago and since then her she kinda dwindled out of the public out to an extent. She still been in it. You know she still active, but not anywhere close to what I would say she was at the peak of her kind of popularity and and being in the public eye, so I know the law firm of Whitaker name.

We try to charge very reasonable legal fees but always wonder what this law firm charge her whoever's paying maybe she's not paying may be someone paying the bills for there's a there's a polite political imagination combination. You know there's people that really care about these issues that there will funded you know packs and whatnot.

So I would assume it's kind of a mix of the two because I'm sure she's not.

She may not be making Judge Judy money but I think she's doing okay, mind, and you also have any. Again, guys mean you're in this is what you do mean if it's a big case and you wanted to volunteer your services. Obviously you're going to get some publicity out of helping a Sarah Palin type so possibly there's that there's some kind of trade-off there. I don't know. I mean I'm just I'm just throwing that out there now.

Not good. You get slam dunked on dry judge and the yeah publicity probably is something, but I imagine these these fees in this time trial or in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in and I would resume closer to that that the million mark.

You know all and in all considered you going against the major media conglomerates and housing at the cheap. I don't think it's a cheap battle like he said a lot of these things don't get to this point so you know this is been going on for a while and in lawsuits are not cheap man. They're not cheap.

We hear about how print media struggles. You know that you know the New York Times and only Mr. Larry talked about how they many subscribers they have, or whatever it was emerald. It was a lot me as millions of millions of millions Saturday and they were they were, up you know on their subscriber behavior going at some deep pockets there and I anyway it was it was really fun to watch you play out you just don't get this kind of case very often. So if you're up journalism geek law geek like I was. It was very interesting to watch. Very interesting to read about. I don't know that we'll see another one of these in the next 10 years are just not just don't see them very often. The lawsuits for libel that actually get tried and you get editors on the stand and reporters have to give either their thought process and why they did this, the mats of very interesting but but only the same train of love where the money comes from. Next, I think Joe and I really spent some time the big settlement between Remington and Sandy Hook was announced this week get it poses a lot of questions I want to talk about the lawyers Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, your host of the managing partners of Whitaker and Hamer law firm. They have offices in Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro Fuquay Marina and Gastonia. They are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. If you got a legal situation you're going through and you got questions. We got a phone number for your 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186 just leave contact information for is with calls about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch. You can also email your questions to the program questions@gallagher.com will answer them on future programs and check out the website, the outlier.com we come back Remington and Sandy Hook and Gastonia and they have 46 combined years of experience between these two again practicing attorneys here in North Carolina to get a legal situation you're going through. Call this number, leave your contact information and briefly what the call is about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch. The number is 800-659-1186 that is 800-659-1186 Remington and Sandy Locke on the block more just came out.

I just saw yesterday but I had had even forgotten.

I just forgot about this at all.

You know you is very hard in United States to sue a gun manufacturer for much of anything right so you you got the second amendment says everybody has the right to bear arms that's interpreted in different ways and under federal law and in different states and you could have your pie talk all year about gun laws and how they differ in and as a relic. The second amendment. But there's also civil statutes, federal, and some states that can shield gun manufacturers from from liability because that's the first thing you know when something happens, the somebodies shot and killed with a gun. You know, attorneys, and and folks try to think of a way to get back you know, at the got to the gun manufacturer you know when you're weird thing about suing somebody you always think about how much money they have right so if you're the victim above gun crime or no family that survives why sums a person to commit the crime doesn't have any money. There's no one insurance shares nothing to get at. If you were to sue them for something a wrongful death action, things like that so people think. Try to come up with ways to get back to the folks who manufactured the gun. How are they negligent. You know that anytime anyway does work a lot scissors in and there's a there's a couple shields. There is just something that's traditionally been very hard to do as of Sandy Hook.

You know, just horrible event.

You know where you had. I don't remember the kid's name I guess is unimportant. You know what up you really want to give the people who commit these kind of atrocities. The, the same that maybe they were looking for but you know, just a lot of kids killed stop the horrific like the most horrible situation you can almost picture Sandy Hook was was terrible and no matter how you feel about gun rights seen Hook was a tragedy rated in so need the the perpetrator there. The guy who did it used in a Remington apparently limiting manufactured AR 15 and so are the families who were lost kids and loved ones. That tragedy had been trying for years to sue Remington for some sort of negligence in any and that's just the we talked about suing the New York Times. It's an uphill battle in our first segment, and this is even more of an uphill battle to get back at a gun manufacturer and so I said I completely forgot about it then will yesterday I saw the story I was breaking that Remington had agreed to a $73 million settlement with the with the affected families and with that settlement.

Not only money but they agreed to release a lot of internal documents. When you sue someone younger back to my example where I'm suing Joe. I sue him, but also ask him. I can I can do some discovery right so I can ask him questions why work. I want you here why were you doing this I can ask him some questions call interrogatories can also request the production of documents saying say give me your Google calendar for the day of you whatever you need a receipt showing me you were buying gas in such a special date so I can I can request things is I guess what is loss it was going on. Remington was not responding to discovery request and so part of the settlement was the families got a lot of internal documents from Remington on how they advertise because apparently that was the crux gentlemen, if you been following this really well but apparently that was the crux of the lawsuit, Remington said you, you're liable because you advertise us AR 15 military style weapon that that normally you only sell to, you know, a few hundred thousand people you advertised to the general public and sold three 4 million of them instead. But but that's what I get. I have and I want to read more of the actual core documents, but I've had a chance to just yet. Yet a few things man. First of all is been a bad chauffeur theoretical me in the same ACC me several times that I didn't do anything to you, man. I was in the sand and show you how you feel about working with Josh not automatically in his basement plotting nothing lawsuits.

The just dropping from a theoretical suit administered Morgan okay on the show and is good like Joe get sued by Josh because you know you you seem to have really been put a lot of thought into this and look bad. I will theoretically sue everybody laughed to sue someone else other than me mask a killer show dynamic and maybe make it better. Maybe that's what we need is you start suing me and we come on we just fight the whole time we argue about our fake loss just to touch on a few things that you mention you know you talked about the fact that the situation obviously terrible. It's a tragedy it's horrendous. Absolutely horrendous and that you know people when they go to sue. They want to get back at someone and you mention how generally the person who perpetrates these crimes, you know, I think it's a safe bet we make a lot of bits here it's it it's a safe bet that the people who are committing mass shootings of this type are generally going to be what we would refer to as judgment proof plaintiff. These are people who have generally speaking got outdone very well for themselves acquired a lot of wealth to real property that you could attach a judgment to that you're going to have a good chance of recovering their usually going to be the types that really have nothing that you can get after so so what else do you do and like you said you go after these gun companies which as you touched on his bed has been virtually impossible due to unitive federal laws that essentially grant immunity to them and a lot of waste so the fact that that this has gone the way that it has has proceeded to this point and then has ultimately settled not only with this this monetary sum but also with with that production of internal documents piece which is was maybe the more relevant thing here because that was you know that was what the family seem to really be after you.

Obviously, everyone wants to, you can't compensate percent like this like there's no amount of money that is going to make you feel better about what took place and make you whole like I don't think anyone would dispute that. But you know a lot of these families approach this as being a larger larger calls in and trying to kind of prevent something like this from happening in the future and they looked at that the best means of accomplishing that being in a looking into the internal practices of of the. The gun manufacturer and so they were really seeking the production of those internal documents and and that was resisted very heavily by Remington. So the fact that they settled in as a condition of that they're going to produce these documents that they really kind of fault to prevent I think it's super interesting development. I really do I really want to see the hard documents or lunacy. The case file on this because I don't I don't get it. I don't I don't know how close it was to going to trial. I don't know for me it just seems so hard to get it. And there's no there's a lot of precedent. You know, I don't know usually settle a case because you either you sometimes you settle a case because you don't you just don't want to deal with right so if you're a celebrity and you get sued and you don't have to go to court you don't want your personal business out there. Sometimes you settle, it's because you just want to stop. That's what you'll see some of these folks famous people get sued and it's probably made up trivial stop they just settle it to get rid of it sometimes insurance companies will settle things just get rid of it because you know fighting it. It takes time and in money right so it's a bit is a business decision. A lot of times, and's and I'm sure Remington is built.

Spent a lot of legal fees here, but it seems to me eventually and muster something I don't know which that I am assuming there is they be successful as I don't know you know I well know there's insurance companies involved in this.

The Remington has insurance companies that the surest amusement foot in the bit the legal bill. I'm sure most of it and so the 73 million. I did read it was all insurance money ceramic to have insurance policies in place to protect against this kind of thing and the insurance companies that decided to pay this money to to settle it so but I just don't get it. I just understand, but this made me think more about you and we talked about the it's got an nickname, but they abortion law in Texas, put forth last year where Texas the lawmakers there know they can save you know you can get an abortion right here there's a there's still a constitutional right for abortion under certain circumstances, even though that's something we were.

I'm sure women discuss a lot this year but Texas made at wall where okay we can stop you from getting abortion. You have a constitutional right to get an abortion under certain circumstances, you know what were to make it illegal for the doctor to perform an abortion because the doctor doesn't have a constitutional right to perform abortions as they had at law where anybody anywhere anybody in Texas can sue a doctor you know a family member who take someone to get an abortion as they have shield abortions in their state. With this law that has been at the Scrimgeour couple times in the spring court hasn't said this is okay, but they also haven't been in a hurry to to strike it down. They wanted to go through proper channels or what have you.

We talked about Joe.

This is a dangerous precedent because it is it is chilled people's right to exercise her constitutional right and I think this is the beginning you know this is got a lot of people thinking about different ways to if you're against gun rights right if you if you think there is not a constitutional right to bear arms or you think it's very limited everything it should change unit is Texas loan abortion, and in this Remington lawsuit. If you can make it where it's not cost-effective for manufacturer to sell God's units that something you can say United Walmart Dick's they don't have to sell AR 15's and will have to sell shotguns and you have Remington doesn't have to produce these weapons and said he could make it economically unattractive to to sell things like this and maybe you get your AR 15 manifest something you're after, the suture Sandy geek on.

It's not an outright ban. It's, like you said it's like the abortion lots not an outright ban, but it's it's you go about it a different way and so if you look at if you look at that.

The history of similar lawsuits of this type, you know, the last big settlement that we saw the doesn't even really come close to touching this book, but is something that we can look at as having some similarities was it was 2004 when bushmaster, and a weapons dealer. They agreed to pay. I believe it was 2.5 million to the families of the folks who were killed in the sniper attacks back in 2001 that that took place in that Washington Maryland Virginia area but but since then unit it was after that fact that you had that federal liability shield that was passed which has made it so so difficult to get at these gun manufacturers and so there's actually a quote from from one of the top gun industry executives that says that liability shield to this point is basically the only reason we even have a firearms industry at all. So if you look at that quote and yet you take it at face value and the you look at this result where they've kind of circumvented that shield, to an extent.

I think this is a fairly large development and in that whole space for for folks who are really pushing for for more gun control of some sort your Remington's is these insurance policies that paid out. I'm sure Remington again. We make a lot of assumptions or does were not privy to utilize internal information seeking after just read backwards take the facts to go backwards but you know they they got insurance that would protect them from from liability as of the insurance is paid out here so this insurance companies are, they will have unlimited supplies of money to panel settlements. Learning to see and we paid a $73 million policy policies. I can exist anymore in eight major stomach does not want to lose money is not an amount of premium you can pay them for them to absorb millions and millions of millions of dollars of losses over and over again so I this is going in the end be really important. I'm sure other gun manufacturers are going to see this and and and you know that he is.

Maybe things get more expensive in the short term. At some point it may not be economically feasible for Remington Remington was having the file bankruptcy once or twice since this happened you know trying. That's another thing you know you have some civil liability out there, you have certain lawsuits to file bankruptcy and you can be shielded from those but I may file bankruptcy. Twice they've been bought by private equity firm.

I wonder what Remington you look like in a year. Yet I wonder whether to be able to produce and just will they be a viable company going forward after something like this because it's good that's a good chunk of change in the Outlaw years Josh Whitaker SchellHamer your halls. They are the managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer law firm 46 combined years experience between these two and again offices in Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro Fuquay Marina and Gastonia and they are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. If you got your own legal situation got a question we have a phone number for you 800-659-1186 to leave your contact information. Briefly, what the call is about. Again 800-659-1186, an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch.

You can always email your questions questions at the Outlaw ally or not, please check out the website. Our shows are there in podcast form the Outlaw lawyer.com, where you talk about some hate crimes and come right and they have offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay Marina and Gastonia. And as always we give you an opportunity if you got a legal situation a question you can always call 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186 and leave your contact information brings with calls about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch and you can always email your questions to the show questions at the LLI or not, will answer them on a future program and please visit the website de outlier.com Lotta stuff there for you to Peru's and you can listen to form in a past shows in podcast form all therefore you I Morgan Patrick consumer advocate and I turn it over because you can talk about some hate crimes and I can't wait to hear athletes to be good time we got camera last time, if ever we had kind to high profile federal hate crime cases going on at the same time and so we've we talked a lot about here in a course on the media you know all that are very was murdered and in Georgia and his is a murderer has as been sentenced on the state level and is been convicted in sounds like will be in prison for the rest of his natural life and of course we had Gavin Floyd was found to have been murdered by officer Derek chosen and an and he's been sentenced on the on the state level and so we also had federal charges and so the federal hate crime statutes. There the site till I'm old.

I still thought there fairly new. Even though there 15-ish years years old.

Now they been on the books for a while but is always interesting to me just cannot see these play out. You know I when they when they went on the books. There was a big argument. You are they necessary and you know in in every kit you know every case, you have the federal government if they want to get you on something that can get you on something they've got a lot of weapons at their disposal naked they could charge. I think at the time this is my opinion I think the time people thought maybe there was a need for these laws because some states want you know at Ann Arbor is a good example as we talked about Mr. armories murder and how there were several prosecutors on the state level, he refused to recuse themselves refuse to prosecute you know it was an instance where something horrible what happened in some of some state officials can refuse doing about it. Finally got to to someone who did charge it out and then these folks are found guilty of murder.

So if for some reason the state had failed to proceed and you have the federal hate crime statute certainly could try Mr. armories murder orders against federal charges. So that they in my mind that's how it is supposed to work. You know it's kind of this unit.

If the state doesn't do what they're supposed to. You got this this backup on the state does what are supposed to and you still have a federal hate crimes trial coming up after just as it seems it you know it raises questions, I think there's a lot of questions whether this raises double jeopardy. Things like that when he statutes coming came on, but you seem like you, rehashing the same thing are technically different charges he violated different statutes and then Joe I think we talked about double jeopardy in one of our earlier episodes and kind.

The Supreme Court cases that did to solve her role on if you remember us talking about that yet. Yet we have and you know it you make a good point and there are similarities you know their similarities between what is being charged here, but there's also some pretty important differences and distinctions and the laws that these two things are prosecuted based on fiber are different. They have different tents at different purposes and so I think the kind have to understand to understand that distinction.

You got a come understand what if the federal hate crime even even really is. So, I hate crime at the federal level is is defined as a crime that's motivated by bias against the victim's perceived or actual race, color, religion, or national origin, sexual orientation and gender, gender identity or disability. And that's according to the Justice Department. So whereas you've got the prosecution of the underlying crime. The act itself.

The murder that they hate crime peace speaks to that the intent behind it and any get there's always good to be intent.

There's that there's a mens rea present in any prosecution of any crime, but this is specifically that motivation of hatred based on those protected groups in this protected classes that have been identified to you. There is a distinction there yeah and it's it's just you know and that is been hashed out. I think most most attorneys most judges. Most legal scholars recognize that that difference and so while most surface. It certainly does look a little bit like your are being tried on the same facts is not for the same thing right in and see Charles been interesting and in the federal court is looking for for different things. You know, proving you murdered someone you're looking at the facts of the weapon and what happened leading up to Whitney intent in self-defense and all his questions, but the federal courts looking at what was your motivation behind it and in our end and that's adding that that's much, much, much harder to prove. We know you know the defendants. Now there's been a trial he been convicted that they did.

In fact, murder mystery was murdered. Mr. Floyd was murdered. So that's not that for its what is the motivation behind the murder and that's a much different bank that's very hard. I think she got some social media error diary year some statements beforehand.

That's really is very hard to prove in and that's kind of been the history of these cases once you have something out there. It seems the penalties are very harsh.

You know it's something that we as a society we want to discourage.

I know Atty. Gen. Garland has said this is a yeah this is a priority for his office is to prosecute crimes when they come to the federal government's intent to put a lot of resources and effort into it so Minnesota Charles been alone for a little bit now. A couple weeks in the armory of one. This is just criminal line but to be very interesting. Just you you think it will be interesting. It sounds like you thinking this may be interesting. I really give anything five or six varies. There is, it will be very interesting in this you know this is been a lot of coverage not as much coverage as the state trials right you know once once people do get convicted of everybody, you know, I think has some kind of phone thereby seen the media ratings to rest easy. So I don't know that these are get the same attention as the state cases did in the course. We talk about the cameras are a lot of time came to live in an and see it you know so it thereby takes a step back, but it will be will see how it plays out anyway, but I judge things I judge things off of the off of the number of berries that you throw in front of them. That's one of my meters for for judging.

That is accepting the six varies that's that's it was several and but I agree with you man, I would give it give it four varies on my head. I know we need to face our opinions very on very there how man's money varies, but might you know it's different things that it's different. Things are trying to prove here and and so like you said it's difficult. It's a difficult proposition to prove that someone was motivated by hate and and this is the thing man. Even if you got social media posts.

You know you could have someone expressing these views. At one point in time, he still got prove it that that person was actually motivated by those feelings that hatred when it came to committing the specific acts and you actually we we seeing that thus far in this trial you seen the court referring to past statements made by some of these individuals regarding you know that racial comments racist things that they said comparisons they've made to so all that's a factor and like you said Josh we we deftly have an interest of vested interest as a society in preventing crimes of this nature from taking place that you don't want anyone to to be targeted for a crime.

As a result of any of those protected basis and we need to take care of those folks and we need it really really put forth any kind of deterrent to to someone who is is a bad enough person to commit a crime.

Based on these factors, but it's it's a difficult thing to prove that and I think that's a difficult case for any prosecutor to make in the absence of some kind of really clear, convincing, crazy evidence of of these individuals mind states which it it almost sounds like we may have that in this case, you know what I might've says nothing to do with talking about overtime them out.

The very scale for Mary's five very six varies my kids and I got three boys all under 12 think 12 oldest of I don't think my 12-year-old is mild to say you not answer by the agency or kids can watch they get they get caught up on on means Ryan as they are big on the ice.

Always mean Myrtle and I'll be playing like an old video from the 90s way that that Cimino figured out, and so we were were watching old 90s videos get ready for the Super Bowl and I'll man say no Diggity was that Jerry was analyzed by Jim in the name\. Blackley Wright St., Baxley Baxley abet the Backstreet Boys saying no to does her best song yet black Street so we so no Diggity and my kids recognize that that was a mean they recognize no Diggity they'd seen no if yes, remember that billionaire Chevrolet ask questions and have the answers lined up ABCD and so one was how many dignities black Street was talking about in song like it was a currency her hike and so the one Eddie was no Diggity B was like a medium amount of dignities and alleys.

Is there gonna put this together and figuring out what is this mean came from but what you have is really funny thing about that is like an international scale of measurement. 14.8 dignities of the later girl.

Whatever we should doubt that here on the shed twice a week we talk about everything and we we talked about the fact that we got hate cry hate crimes that are in the news and we even we go all the way to the number of dignities I like in the number varies. We have a wrap up segment coming up the lawyers Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer will be here for that Whitaker and Hamer law firm is where you can find them during the week they are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. The managing partners of the firm and have offices in Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro Fuquay Marina and Gastonia. You got a legal question of your own need an answer. Here's the number 800-659-1186 at 800-659-1186. You can also email your questions to the show.

No Diggity questions at the outlier.comments, questions, and the alleluia.com please visit the website. The outlier.com or fax wrap it up right after this welcome back into the outlaw large get ready wrap up Josh Whitaker Joe Hamer are your José.

The managing partners at Whitaker Hamer law firm practicing attorneys here in North Carolina and 46 combined years experience between the two of them and offices almost on every corner, Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro Fuquay Marina and Gastonia. And folks, if you've got a legal question that you have been struggling with, and you need an answer. We got a number 4800 659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186 leave your contact information briefly with calls about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch shortly. You can also email your questions to the show questions@theoutlier.com are you guys it's wrap it up during during the break as a been trying to figure out I will want to create a Diggity scale and add some of that we can arrange each show by and so I think that in our scale will be 1 to 123 120 dignities being the most dignities. You can get one being the least amount of dignities you get up and shout about 98 9898.I am on the Diggity scale I like it looks existed to go inception on you I'm good to add three dignities to your your rating to give it 101 dignities because of the creation of the Diggity meter. I need some ratio so we can convert like leaders did dignities in meters per second.

The dignities we have put our tops are taught. I think your honest man, I think, think. Thank goodness for your children for to get to this point man when my my middle my middle boy is as been working through some fractions. Learning how to add and subtract fractions and things like that so I think I'll put them on, like, you know volume of the cylinder calculated solely in an Diggity spelling we did a thing as a nation we will embrace the metric system may be the baby to Denise's system could not without hourly. I'm really proud of us for it. In the course of one show being able to to discuss topics ranging from Sarah Palin to the Backstreet Boys. I think there's a lot of which is really covering the gamut. There I we had. We also talk about our 4042 office more, so Maureen always goes through our office locations in our newest is our 4042 office and we gotta make sure we get that in the list: baguettes all 123 dignities the fantastic off you know your big time when you you you just go ahead and get rid of the names you just doing numbers now right just doing numbers many more. You always talk about door rock you hit one of our office. Please don't throw rocks at our office. He I guess that that was the wrong it's a good analogy, but it's it's the know is just it's just a were not don't do that all right guys will the LOI or we have one in the books Josh Whitaker Joe Hamer are your hosts of the managing partners at Whitaker Hamer law firm again always just a very interesting conversation when it comes to legalese we had all the hot topics each and every week and and and again some of the discussion. You probably haven't considered their to get into again here on the outlier offices in Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro Fuquay Marina and Gastonia and they are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina.

The demand partners at the firm.

If you got a question column 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186. You can also email your questions to be out on your.com enter quote Anna Kendrick from pitch perfect. We out as attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina guess appearing on the show. Maybe license North Carolina attorneys discussion of the chosen to be general in nature and in no way should the discussion be interpreted as legal advice. We would like to be rendered.

Once an attorney licensed in the state in which you live at the opportunity to discuss the backs of your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law, North Carolina, and how these laws affect aboriginal Carolinian.

If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly