Jussie Smollet trial, Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health organization, and Social Media and the first amendment

And now, Outlaw Lawyer. Welcome in to the Outlaw Lawyer's.

Josh Whittaker and Joe Hamer, your hosts. You can find them at Whittaker and Hamer Law Firm. They're the managing partners, practicing attorneys here in North Carolina.

Forty-six combined years experience between these two and offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina, and Gastonia. I'm Morgan Patrick, consumer advocate. We talk legal each and every week here on the Outlaw Lawyer's. And we have fun. We get very, very serious.

But again, we're allowed to poke fun at ourselves because that's what we do. If you've got a legal situation that you're dealing with and you've got questions, you can get in touch with Whittaker and Hamer by calling 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186. Just leave your name, number, and a brief description of what you're going through.

And an attorney will give you a quick call back and also you can, questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. You can send us questions and we'll answer them on future shows. But guys, welcome in. I know we've got another busy week. Hope you had a great week. Josh Whittaker We did, Morgan. Or I did. Joe, did you have a good week? Morgan Patrick I did, Josh.

I really did. Josh Whittaker I was going to ask you guys, we got a lot of meaty legal topics to get to. But this week, me and my wife were trying to finalize the Christmas shopping for the kids. You guys having any luck with that? How's your Christmas shopping going? Morgan Patrick I'm a last minute guy. It's it's it's terrible.

I really need to work on it. But yeah, I mean, my kids are a little bit older. So what do you think they want?

They want cash. Josh Whittaker That's easy. That's easy. That's not going to come off the shelves. Like you're gonna you're not gonna have any issues.

The cash isn't held up on a boat in the harbor. Morgan Patrick That is very true. Josh Whittaker You know, we I'm usually a last minute guy.

But the hysteria, I think it got to my to my wife more so than me. So she's, she's really been on the up and up and gotten a lot done ahead of time. I think I've only got a few last minute things to do. So not sure if if, you know, I haven't been in a lot of stores because we do a lot of the online shopping.

So I don't know if the shelves are truly as barren as some people have said. But if they are going to be in some trouble with my last minute, the last minute piece that I've yet to finish. Morgan Patrick Yeah, we did that too. We got a little nervous. And so we did a lot of online shopping.

And now we're just doing some some finishing up. But you keep hearing that on the news, the how the Christmas shopping is gonna be difficult, but so far so good. I guess the online stuff is really a game changer. I'm like Morgan, I used to be super duper like that the morning of I'd stroll out and see what I could find and and but now with the online it's it seems like it's not that hard.

Josh Whittaker Yeah, and I've I've taken advantage of online shopping. I occasionally I like to get out we were actually shocked. We were at a couple of large stores this last this last week and didn't have a big issue. There were lines but they were manageable. That's my big thing. I don't like being in a big store with a ton of people and people are frantic and we didn't experience that this past week.

So I I was pleasantly surprised. I'll probably it'll probably be more intense the closer we get to the day. Morgan Patrick You guys on that same vein, you guys got your decorations up? Are you guys big decorators?

Josh Whittaker I mean, I'm a I'm a medium decorator, I guess you'd say. Um, the kids I get a lot of peer pressure from my children to complete my decorations. And uh, man, I tell you what, it's it's, I'm close to done.

I've got a little bit left. But I think I've decided after this is the last year that I'm physically going to do the decorations myself. They've got these companies now, Joshua, that will do these things for you. They'll take them down. And I actually tried to call one I had a guy I know, he posted online, his house was decorated by by this company did a fantastic job. They come they measure they do it they take them down the taken downs that the bad part man, that's what I'm not a big fan of. But uh, I called them and unfortunately, they are booked up for this year.

So I'm gonna go ahead and get on their schedule for 2022. Morgan Patrick It sounds that sounds pretty fancy, Joseph. Josh Whittaker Yeah, I think I don't think it's got to be super fancy. But uh, the amount of time that I spent this weekend on the ladder just put the bicycle lights up.

There's there's no price not worth paying to avoid that next year. Josh Whittaker I'm traditionalist, you know, pretty you know, do the tree do a little outside, but nothing too crazy. I was driving through Fuquay, the Quay this past week, and there is a house on Judd Parkway, that obviously has watched Christmas vacation way too many times. And this, I want to know what this dude's electric bill is going to be. Because it is I mean, literally, it's a heat source you drive by, there's a heat source right there at the corner.

Josh Whittaker Part of me wants to wants to do that. I just don't have the energy for it, man. The inflatables really, like drive me insane. Because we know we've tried to put the inflatables up. And if you if you've got like the timer that you put your lights on, you kind of put everything on the same circuit, the inflatables seem to never come up the same way they go, they go down. And, and it just drives me nuts, man.

So we've really, we've steered away from a lot of inflatable usage in our Christmas decorations. Josh Whittaker I'm not so old that I can't remember how fun it was as a kid, like when you when you had those people who did that took so much time with their house. And you know, you drive by. That was like the meadow lights back in the day, right?

You didn't have any light displays that you pay, you bought a ticket and you drove through you, you found the people who really went over and beyond on their houses and you drove by their houses and you saw it for, you know, 10, 15 seconds, however long your parents felt comfortable slowing down in traffic to see it. But now when I see that stuff, I'm like, man, that's bad for traffic. I don't I don't have that same joy, you know that. But but it's good people do that. I don't do that. We're, we're pretty medium on the it's basically whatever my wife feels like doing.

I don't get too heavily involved in the Christmas decorating. So for better or worse. Chris Swenor That's a shame, man. I feel like you I feel like you could really knock it out of the park if you put your heart and soul into it. And so Josh Whittaker So, so busy all the time. So much to do.

Chris Swenor That's the thing. It's tough, man. And then you do when you do spend that time. I mean, it's it's I guess it's rewarding. The kids the kids enjoy it.

I mean, I enjoy it too after I'm done. But it's just getting there, man. It's just getting there.

So the earlier you can get there, the better. But you know, we're what it's the eighth. So we're not that far from Christmas, and we're still not fully done. So we're gonna have a not many days to enjoy it.

And that makes me a little sad. But that company, man, I'll report back this time next year 2022. Check back with me. And I will give you my results of hiring whatever company it is to come and decorate my house for me. Chris Swenor Are you guys are you guys car decoration guys?

Or do you leave your cars alone? I Chris Swenor Absolutely not. Chris Swenor No, no, I don't think I don't I don't I wouldn't even know where to start if I had to do that. Okay, just just just checking.

Chris Swenor I'm not a reindeer you put the reindeer horns in the nose on it. I think that's what most folks do. And they got car inflatables now too, that you can put I saw those the other day, you can put them in like the front seat, plug it into the the old cigarette lighter. And and you can have a passenger that's an inflatable.

So but yeah, none of that. No, I think that's a step too far, Morgan. Morgan Chris Swenor Okay, I just I just wanted to ask obviously a very sensitive topic, but Chris Swenor I'm drawing the line. Chris Swenor Well, the other the other holiday thought I had when we were going to sit down and start the show is you know, we're all in North Carolina, we like to talk about the ACC and, and state accepted that bid to the what is it the Holiday Bowl out in California. And I'm sad to report even though I saw every home game this year, I am not going to make the trip to California for the Holiday Bowl. So I mean, I understand I'm kind of like you, Josh, I they've had such a great year, it's almost a shame that a larger percentage of the fan base are not going to be able to go in person. I mean, there's gonna be a lot that go.

But that is a that's a trek, folks, if you've ever done cross country, that is something else. Morgan Forgive me, Josh, what day is that bowl on? Chris Swenor I think it's the 20. I want to say the 28th. I think it's probably don't think there's any other bowl game. I think what I read, I read a state yeah, I was trying to make it sound like it was the best bowl ever that we could have gone to. But I think it's, I think it's the 28th.

I think it's in primetime ESPN and doesn't really have anything competing against it. Morgan Well, I'm sure that'll be fun. I mean, I'm sure that'll be a good time. And whoever does make that trip. That sounds like a I mean, it does sound like a good one.

But uh, I think watching from the comfort of your home in the warmth without that long trip, I think you'll be just fine. Chris Swenor What was it was Carolina went to the where the mayonnaise one? Is that what happened?

I didn't see what you're doing. Are you you're being serious? Yeah, it's the Duke mayonnaise. And they're taking on South Carolina. That's a fine mayonnaise in Charlotte. They are playing in Charlotte.

What a did do. I'm not being facetious. I just didn't pay attention. Does Duke have the six wins? Are they going to one? Yeah, they're gonna Duke's gonna be this year.

They're in the toilet bowl. No, they don't have six wins. Josh, you know, six wins.

Josh, I really wasn't digging there. I just I didn't know you were they didn't have a I didn't know they had a great season. But you know, as a as a big Duke fan, the kids, they put their heart into it. I know they really gave it their all. Yeah, they did. But I think they got outscored like 195 to 20 over the last like eight games of the season or something.

It was it was not a very great end to the season. Of course, Duke will have a new football coach next year. Be very interested to see how how that plays out.

And we're optimistic as Duke fans for the future. Thank you, David Cutcliffe, for all you did for us. Yeah, absolutely. I think you do need to send out that big thank you.

I think you did wonders for the program. And now next up. So we're gonna be talking about Jesse Smollett. The case very bizarre case that was heavily in the news a few years back and then kind of died down. But now that he is on trial, the closing arguments have have come and gone and we're gonna be seeing the verdict there. We're gonna discuss that case, get into the facts of it.

Very interesting and strange case, to say the least. The outlaw liars Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm, the managing partners there. Again, practicing attorneys here in North Carolina offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina and Gastonia.

And again, 46 combined years experience between these two. If you've got a legal question, call this number. 800-659-1186. 800-659-1186.

You may be going through something and you just have questions. They're here for you. 800-659-1186. You can also send your questions to the show and we'll use them in an upcoming episode questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. And please check out our website, theoutlawlawyer.com.

Back after this. The outlaw liars back on the air. Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm are your hosts. Forty-six combined years experience between these two.

And again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina and Gastonia. They are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. I'm Morgan Patrick, consumer advocate, and I often say the referee between these two.

We have some serious legal conversations, but we also have a lot of fun here on the program. If you've got a legal situation you're dealing with and you've got a question, you can always contact the firm. 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186. Leave your name and contact information briefly what it's about. And an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch with you. Guys, I know we've got a lot to get into.

Take it away. Thanks, Morgan. We're going to be talking about Jesse Smollett, the again, very interesting case, very bizarre fact pattern. I think it was about three years ago now that this actually first came to light the incident itself. For people who are not familiar with Jesse Smollett, he's an actor that was known for the show Empire, very popular show. Of course, he was ultimately not asked to come back to that show after the fallout from this event. But he was also a child actor who starred in the fantastic, fantastic film, The Mighty Ducks, which Josh, you told me you've never seen The Mighty Ducks.

Yeah, we were just talking about this and I'm aware of what Empire is. I've never watched it. And then again, I watched the same things over and over again. And then I've always meant to watch The Mighty Ducks, but I was a little old when The Mighty Ducks came through, a little older, like I've seen the Sandlot, which I think is it's probably the same thing more or less. Very different films, Josh.

Very. The Sandlot does not have Emilio Estevez. Do you even know who Emilio Estevez is since you're not a Mighty Ducks guy? I do, because I have seen Young Guns. So that's how I know who he is. I think I throw out Breakfast Club before I throw out Young Guns. But anyway, that's just me.

I'll allow it, Josh. So so getting back to the facts of the Smollett case, this is an incident that took place nearly three years ago. The original story when it came out, basically what was presented by Smollett as what took place. He was walking late night, very late night in Chicago, walking to Subway, I believe. And he claimed he was approached by two masked men that basically assaulted him. He said he was punched in the face. He said they poured an unknown chemical substance on him, which I think he said he suspected was bleach.

He had a rope that was wrapped and tied around his neck. He said that they screamed racial slurs at him. And he also said that they were, which is this is, again, very, very bizarre fact pattern, but basically said that the attackers, as they were attacking him, kept making mention to MAGA, the Donald Trump slogan, who was the then president at the time.

They kept making constant reference to Make America Great Again, which, again, extremely, extremely strange fact pattern. But that's how it was reported. And, again, at the time, this is reported. And, of course, a lot of celebrities, a lot of media, everyone, as they would be if this was a true and factual account of what happened, extremely concerned. There's a lot of a lot of support for the actor, a lot of people commenting on the state of race relations in America based on this incident. It just it really stirred up a lot of fuss. Yeah, I think I remember that being a big it was just basically a sounding board for anybody who, you know, obviously, if true, horrible. I don't think anyone would would argue that it wasn't a horrible occurrence if it is true. But but certainly everybody from really famous people to really low level, D level celebrities just used it as a jumping off point to look at the state of race relations in the USA.

And a lot of people commented and a lot of people very fired up. And again, as they should be, who's who would suspect, you know, until you really dig into the facts of this, you know, you don't have any reason to believe that anybody would would perpetrate what has essentially since by the by the authorities at least been called a hoax in this manner. It just doesn't compute that someone, especially someone very famous in the public eye, would would do this. What's been alleged. So but shortly after the original facts are reported, you know, there's a lot of a lot of outrage, a lot of media coverage.

And then very shortly thereafter, you start seeing some some very suspicious things that start coming out. You know, it's reported that Smollett's not cooperating with authorities. He's not really talking to him.

He refused to turn his phone over to the police, which they needed it because, you know, according to him, he was on the phone with his manager and there were some, you know, the altercation was heard and there was phone records that were at issue. So eventually, after some investigation, the police apprehend to what they call people of interest in the case. They don't say they're suspects. They just say that they're they're people of interest. And they are the Asendario Asendaro brothers.

The brothers is what we'll call them. Two men from Nigeria that had previously worked as extras on the show Empire, which Smollett was working on at the time. And they also said that they had a relationship with him. They had worked out with him basically that they knew Smollett. On that same day, Smollett gives an interview the same day that these these gentlemen are apprehended. He gives an interview and basically in not so many words suggests that the attackers were white men.

Again, really stoking that divisive racial hate crime aspect of this. So evidence eventually comes out that says that Smollett was in close contact with the brothers, that he instructed them on the materials to buy for the attack. Basically, he orchestrated the attack as, you know, a publicity stunt or a hoax or some some way to whatever his motive was. The allegation was he basically faked the entire thing. I don't understand the motivation there. Like, I don't get the like I don't that's what I don't get. Like, you know, if he did fake it, that's terrible.

You know, but I don't I don't see the plus side of faking something like that. I guess I had been able to figure that out. Well, I think if you look, I mean, he got a lot of attention. He got a lot of attention. He got a huge outpouring of support and people really, you know, telling him how brave he was. And he himself, like if you look at the media around the time, you know, he he presented himself as, you know, this really strong figure standing up for gay rights, for minority rights.

He called himself the gay Tupac. I think that was his quote in one of the interviews. And he really like, you know, he really absorbed the spotlight here and kind of got I think kind of twisted it into a lot of media coverage and a lot of publicity. So I can see that being the motivation.

But at the same time, it's you're right, man. It's it's a it's it's there's so many ways to go about getting attention other than this, assuming that these allegations were true. So eventually, there's felony criminal charges that are brought against him for disorderly conduct and filing a false or police report. Those charges are actually dropped.

So they're dropped. And it's not until almost a year later that there's a special prosecutor that is appointed. And he's ultimately charged with six total counts of lying to police, which is the charges that he has most recently been on trial for. I saw closing arguments were set for today. So this one, this one that we may get a verdict before, you know, we go to air. But, but it was, you know, the big thing here was he took the stand, right? So the prosecution put on their case, and then kind of like, you know, we talked a lot about Rittenhouse here, the defendant took the stand. And, and I read some of the line of questioning yesterday, just as it was being reported, and really some snippy testy exchanges between, you know, on cross examination.

So he has taken the stand. And, and what I couldn't really tell from what I read is, of course, he's saying that this is a real incident, it really happened. But there's, it's kind of some odd testimony yesterday, from what I could tell, man, it's an odd case all around. And, uh, you know, there's so many odd things, there's, you know, there's footage that has come out, there's body cam footage that has come out of Smollett talking to the officers on the night of the incident, and he still got the rope around his neck.

And this is alleged to have taken this footage is from seven hours after the incident took place. And the officers actually question him, like, you know, do you want to take that off? Like, do you want to take that off?

Like, what, what is that still on your neck for? He said, basically said he just wanted them to see it. And there's just a lot of really strange things. You know, the, these, it's clear that Smollett had a absolutely had a relationship with the two individuals in question. And they've obviously come out and said, this was all perpetrated, he instructed them what to do. There's numerous phone calls in and around the time of the incident. And there's, there's a lot of evidence that points to that being the case. And of course, Smollett's counter argument to that is, he's saying that the brothers basically were trying to fake an attack on him. Well, not fake an attack, but actually perpetrated real attack, but but hide their identity, I guess, to force him to pay them to be his security.

I think that's what his argument is. Strange all around, man. And he's a charismatic guy. You know, he's, he's an actor.

He's a famous actor for a reason. And you know, a lot of that charisma and ability to speak well has has been displayed in court, but all around just a super bizarre incident. And it really comes down to a, it's a, it's a, it's an issue of credibility, and and how you assess his credibility, versus the credibility of the prosecutors, the police who investigated and the the two brothers that are at the center of this case is really what it boils down to. And it always seemed to me, and again, I've never delved real deeply into this, I remember it coming up, and I kind of looked at, I've been taking notice of the trial.

But it always seemed to me, this would be one of those things that was just better. You know, you know, you got iffy evidence, so you maybe you don't, you don't expect to find anybody. It just seemed like this kind of thing that should just be left alone. I don't know that though.

I don't know. It just seems, it seems it seems iffy on both sides. You do say that.

And I see that I see your point there. But at the same time, man, this, if you go back and you look at the firestorm that this really created, you're talking about a lot of police resources that were dedicated to this investigation. A lot of energy spent in the in the media, again, a lot of folks up in arms. And if you look at it, if you take the if you take the prosecution's argument as true, and this was really just a truly, completely orchestrated hoax, for whatever reason, I mean, I think that's something that everybody should want to see, you know, punished in some way to discourage anyone from from doing that going forward.

But, but yeah, like you said, it's tough. There's not a lot of tangible, concrete evidence that I've seen. There is a lot of he said, she said, and you can look and draw inferences from, you know, all this circumstantial evidence. And, you know, we can say this is doesn't really none of it really makes sense.

But uh, yeah, I'm with you, it'll be very interesting to see how I don't know that I want to make a prediction on how this goes, Josh. Well, he's, he's given a lot of testimony. So this is the interesting thing to me. So he's given a lot of testimony. And they've really, you know, made him answer some tough questions, which is what happens when you take the stand as a defendant get crossed. But I, you know, a judge, you know, if he's found, if it's found that this is a hoax, right, if that's what the jury comes back and finds, you know, as a defendant, you have to worry about perjury, right? I mean, you're on the stand, you're answering questions, you're obviously having to, you know, to go on record, you're not just being charged, now you're being asked things that are on record.

And if they're not true, you know, a judge can, you know, the court perjury charges, you know, you don't, you don't want to perjure yourself on the stand. But I'll be interested to see if that, you know, if he is found to be guilty, do we have any kind of perjury issues? I think he's got a lot of issues if he's found to be guilty, you know, I think, I think he's going to have, and you've already seen a drastic impact on his career on the opportunities available to him. So he's, there's definitely been repercussions for this, as it already stands, but, you know, gonna be interesting to see the legal ramifications of what kind of penalties that he faces in the event that he is found guilty here. I mean, we don't know what's gonna happen, but I can almost almost guarantee his career's over.

He's not gonna be doing anything else. Oh, yeah, I think it's done. I think it's, I think you look, this is one of those situations where even if there's not concrete, tangible evidence, there's enough there, where a reasonable person can connect the dots.

And, and yeah, he's gonna have trouble going forward. Okay, guys, the outlaw lawyers, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, again, the discussions are legal each and every week. What's coming up in our next segment? I think in the next segment, Morgan, we're gonna look at that Dobbs v. Jackson women's health case before the Supreme Court, their oral argument since our last shows. I think we're gonna go into that for a minute.

All right, sounds good. The outlaw liars, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, your hosts, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer law firm, 46 combined years experience between these two, and again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina, and Gastonia, and just remember, folks, if you've got a legal question of your own, give the firm a call, leave your name, contact information, a little bit about what your question is, and they will be back in touch. Here's the number, 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. If you'd like your question, Brotes, on the program, well, just email it to us, questions at theoutlawlawyer.com, and we'll use that in a future program. We'll keep your name out of it, but we'll answer the question on the air. Check out the website. Again, it's theoutlawlawyer.com.

We're back right after this. You're locked in to the outlaw liars, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer law firm, are your hosts, 46 combined years experience between these two, and again, they have offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina, and Gastonia, and just a reminder, they are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. We talk about legal topics all across the country and across the world, but they are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. If you've got a legal question of your own and you need some answers, the number to call is 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186. Leave your contact information, briefly, what the call is about, and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be back in touch with you.

You can also email the show your question. That's questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. Guys, I know that we've had big cases, great discussions on them.

Where are we going next? Well, you know, Morgan, I wanted to spend more time, we've talked about this, at least on two occasions, but Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization, this is the Mississippi abortion case that was before the Supreme Court. Well, last week was oral arguments, and I think the last time we talked for the show, oral arguments were actually going on as we were recording.

And so since then, of course, I was able to listen to the oral arguments and kind of see where everybody was going. Joe, I think, you know, we've got 100% accuracy on our judgment prediction rate right now, and I think we predicted that we wouldn't see, was our prediction that Roe v. Wade would not be overturned? Is that our, is that our official stance here on the Outlaw Lawyer? I think our official position, and I'm going to remain vague so we can continue to hold that 100% rating, but I think we basically said there was not going to be any kind of landmark change, that it wasn't going to be some drastic wide sweeping change to anything. And essentially Roe v. Wade would ultimately, you know, with minor, if any, changes be uphill. Well, and okay, okay.

Well, that's better. I didn't know how far we went because the oral argument certainly kind of exposed, you know, there's, when we talk about the Supreme Court, even though there's political undertones, I really, when we talk about a Supreme Court justice, I think justices, while they have their political leanings, maybe a Republican president or a Democratic president appointed them, I think once they get to the Supreme Court and they consider cases, again, while they have political leanings, I don't think their decisions are political. And I give them all the benefit of the doubt that, that it's not political. So I'm going to say the court is probably right now, I think most major outlets that follow the Supreme Court would see them as having a conservative majority, but that's not a political conservative. That's just kind of, you know, a term you use, you know, more, but anyway, so we've got a conservative majority and that was certainly on display. Joe, I don't know if you had a chance to see a whole lot or listen to a whole lot of the oral arguments. Yeah. You know, I didn't, I didn't follow it as closely as, as you did, Josh.

I've been relying on you to keep me updated and you've done a fantastic job on that. But yeah, I think what you, I think your assessment of the court is fair. And like you said, it's not, it's not really conservative in the political sense, despite, you know, the, the political leanings of who, who appointed these justices. But, but like you said, it's, it's a different distinction when you, when you refer to a justice in this, in the sense of being conservative. And it's really conservative in their interpretation of the constitution in essence.

Real quick review. So this Mississippi case comes up because Mississippi, the state legislature, the state lawmaking body made a law that after 15 weeks can't get an abortion. So they put a limit on when a woman can choose to seek an abortion. And, you know, the standing law, the Roe versus Wade and all the cases that have come after to kind of, kind of point out where we're at with abortion law, that violates it. So they're basically, Mississippi has said, Hey, we know more about when a fetus is viable now, and when a fetus can feel pain and when a fetus should be considered its own individual, and we're going to say after 15 weeks, you can't do it.

And they knew this would be an issue. This is something that would get litigated because it's in contradiction to the established law. And so this has come up and now it's before the court. We've got some new justices. So you have justice like Clarence Thomas, who has gone on record.

He disagrees with Roe v. Wade. And I think we spent a whole show just talking about, you know, explicit, you know, rights that are in the constitution, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech, things that are written expressly into the constitution. And then we've got all these rights that we get because the court over time has created this right to privacy. They have, they have read the constitution in a way as to imply some protections that maybe the founding fathers probably, you know, didn't have a lot of, there wasn't probably a lot of dispute on, you know, abortion back when the founding fathers originally wrote the constitution. And so the court has gone out of its way to kind of imply some rights that we arguably today find important privacy, abortion, things like that. So we won't rehash that here, but I think Clarence Thomas has gone on record saying Roe v. Wade, he thinks is bad law. You know, it's an, it's an implied right.

And there's a lot you can Google and read that he's done. And then you have a justice like Sotomayor had a lot of, had a lot to say, and she obviously believes that, you know, the court did not make a mistake. Roe v. Wade is precedent and, and they're kind of the polar opposites and all the other justices are kind of trying to find their way.

But there was some interesting things here, Joe. And so some of the, I think Kavanaugh and Barrett who were kind of new justices, they kind of separated, they look back at the Roe v. Wade argument and, and you kind of got body autonomy, right? That's a part of this abortion debate. You know, a woman should be able to choose it's her, it's her body, it's her choice. So this body autonomy argument, and then this, the burden of parenting argument. And so that's kind of what they read this abortion debate to be about.

And so it was interesting to hear them ask questions because Barrett made the comparison on the body autonomy issue. You know, the Supreme Court has not invalidated any vaccine mandates. They have, they have, I don't think they've heard, I could be wrong. I misremember sometimes, Joe, but I don't think they've heard any cases they've denied, I think, hearing anything. So any kind of vaccine mandate case that's made its way up there, I think the Supreme Court has just declined to hear it.

Yeah. And, you know, I think it's important, Josh, going back to what you were talking about, the fact that, you know, you've got certain explicitly stated rights in the constitution, and then you've got the, these implied rights that we've discussed as well. And, you know, I think it's important to note the fact that a right is simply implied doesn't necessarily make it any less valuable than those that are stated explicitly and the way that the constitution is drafted that, you know, there's these implied rights, that's just, that's just kind of the way, you know, they're there.

And that, again, it doesn't reduce the importance of some of those. But that right to abortion absolutely doesn't explicitly appear in the constitution. And, you know, I think the media has kind of interpreted a lot of questions that are being asked by these conservative, quote, unquote, conservative judges, as potentially, you know, design in a way where they could conclude they might shift and change this Roe v. Wade argument, this Roe v. Wade ruling, and essentially overturn it, but I'm going to stick by that initial decision we made, Josh, we're not going to see any kind of a major, major shift there. When you listen to oral, when you follow the Supreme Court, and you follow oral arguments, you never know if a justice is just playing devil's advocate, just wants to know what the lawyers in front of them are going to say, or how they're going to respond.

So you never really, a judge, a justice usually doesn't show their cards. But I mean, you can kind of follow their line of questioning. And it does seem, I was actually a little bit surprised, it does seem after the questions they ask, and that's, like you said, that's what the media seized on, that at least some of these more conservative justices are at least entertaining the idea that maybe Roe v. Wade is bad law. But, you know, Barrett's line of questioning about, you know, if parenting is the issue, you've got safe haven laws, you've got adoption, adoptions are easier than they were, I guess, back in the day.

So she was saying maybe this, if parenting is the problem, we got ways around that. And so if we're just looking at body autonomy, it was interesting. I just haven't, I haven't seen a justice focus on that before, and especially contradicting it to how the Supreme Court is looked at. Basically, if someone who has authority mandates you get the vaccine, you're going to get the vaccine, and the Supreme Court's not going to intervene, or at least has it.

I thought that was, I thought that was interesting. But it does seem like now I'm going to stay with the fact that I don't think we're going to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade. I do think they may uphold this 15-week. That's what I was kind of, you know, that might be a middle ground, you know, they, Roe v. Wade, they'll, they'll keep in place, but this 15-week limitation, they might be entertaining that staying in place. I don't know how that affects our percentage if that happens, but I think it doesn't affect it at all, because I think, like you said, you know, clarifying, clarifying the Roe v. Wade ruling, adding, adding, you know, I guess, quote unquote, reasonable restrictions to the right to get an abortion. I don't think that's an overturning of Roe v. Wade. I think, you know, an overturning of Roe v. Wade would, would almost be an outright prohibition. And I don't think we're going to, obviously, I don't think we're going to see that here.

So I think our, I think we will stay perfect in our record. Well, we're going to have to wait and see and see how it all turns out. The outlaw lawyers are Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm, the managing partners there, again, practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. Folks, if you've got a question, a legal situation that you are in and you need some answers, give them a call. 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. Leave your name and contact information briefly what it's about. And an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be back in touch with you shortly. Questions at the Outlaw Lawyer is where you can send a question to the program. We'll use it on a future show possibly.

And you can go to the website, theoutlawlawyer.com. Guys, what's coming up in our next segment? Morgan, coming up next, we're going to talk about a recent Texas law, which a judge actually issued a very scathing opinion on and striking it down, dealing with social media networks and those social media networks dictating what content can and can't be disseminated online on those platforms. All right, we're talking social media coming back right after you hear this.

We are back. The Outlaw Lawyer's Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer. You can find them at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm, managing partners there, practicing attorneys here in the great state of North Carolina. 46 combined years experience between these two. And they have offices all over the place.

Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay-Varina and Gastonia almost need oxygen just to get through the list. I'm Morgan Patrick, consumer advocate. We talk legal each and every week. And the topics are very, very serious.

But we also like to have fun on the program. If you've got a question, a legal situation you are in, you can always call the firm 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186. Or email the question and we'll handle it here on the show. You can do that by going to questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. Send it to us.

Check out the website, theoutlawlawyer.com. Going to talk some social media now. Can hardly wait for this one because we're all about our social media.

We are, Morgan. Social media censorship, very prominent topic lately. And it's really funny. We talk about the bias we see in a lot of news networks and really from both sides of the aisle. And if you pay attention to people complaining about social media, it's funny because you've got one side of the argument that argues their viewpoints are being suppressed.

Things are being taken down. They're not allowed to speak freely on social media networks. And then you can have the other side of the coin making the counter argument that what they are saying is being promoted too heavily. And it's just like, who's, it's insane to look at two opposite sides of the argument, basically arguing so staunchly against the same thing and how people's perception can be so different like that.

Yeah. The weird thing when you start reading about this, they're both first amendment arguments. So both sides are making pretty much the same argument. They're both first amendment arguments. It's kind of nuts. I have to, when I was reading a couple of articles about this, I had to stop, think about it for a minute and then get back into the article.

But yeah, but they hate each other so much and they, and it's almost like they're making the same argument, but you get, you get into that tribalism, you get on, you know, people are so committed to their team winning and so stuck in their own viewpoints that, that you just get, you get these crazy, insane arguments where they're, what are they even arguing about? But, that's kind of the backdrop against which, which we're going to talk about this new Texas law. So without getting into the guts of this Texas law too deeply and really dissecting, dissecting it, it basically stated that it was trying to compel social media platforms to not remove certain things from those platforms. So it was, it was essentially, I think the argument for it from the, the proponents of it was that it was in the interest of the first amendment freedom of speech type of argument, that these, these networks should not be able to remove certain content and certain things that were, were being posted on them.

And interestingly enough, the, the judge who overturned this law, he comes back and uses the first amendment as the very basis for which gives these social media platforms the right to restrict content any way that they see fit. Before we get too far into this, Joe, just, you know, this is a Texas state law. We've talked about Texas state law two or three times here recently. How easy is it to get a law passed in Texas? Apparently it doesn't take much.

It doesn't take too much at all, I would say. And, and, and then you see him get just smacked down to the ground so forcefully as you did in this case. So, yeah, so basically what the judge has come out and said in this case is, uh, he's essentially said that not allowing social media platforms to curate their own content is a violation of those companies first amendment rights. So, you know, you don't often think of the first amendment right. Uh, you don't think of it in terms of what you are allowed to remove from your platform or not promote on your platform, but that's basically what the judge is saying here, that, that right to free speech, it gives you the right to omit content as well. And you can curate content on your platform, basically any way that you see fit. And so if that, if that includes you not disseminating what you consider to be objectionable content, then you can do that because you have that right. And that has permitted and the company's editorial discretion.

You get to, you get two private actors here, right? So the Texas state law, I think their goal here was to maybe protect, you know, me and you, like, if we want to throw something up on Facebook that they might violate their standards, uh, that Facebook can't take down or favor one side over the other, or my vaccine study over your vaccine study. So I think there were some, uh, I think the Texas law was trying to maybe, I don't, I didn't read it. Like I didn't read anything verbatim and, uh, that said they were doing this, but I think their thought was we're going to protect the first American, you know, the first amendment rights of, um, people who are using these social platforms and, and, and the first amendment's not really accurate because of course, this isn't a Facebook, you know, Twitter, they're not state actors, right? We've talked about the first amendment and it doesn't let the government, you know, uh, tell you what you can say. But of course, Facebook, Twitter, they're private companies, me, you, Morgan posting on Facebook, we're, uh, private citizens. So it's not really, we say first amendment we're kind of throwing that around, uh, lightly, but the judge wasn't because here the social media platforms have a first amendment right to moderate content on their platforms as they see fit. Um, just, it was just, it was just interesting.

I think that's the best way to put this. And this was a U S district federal court. So it was a state law. It got challenged in federal court. This was a U S district court. Um, and he, he struck it down and who knows if Texas will take anything further than that. Yeah.

And you know, it's like you said, when you get where, where that first amendment comes into play is when you have the state attempting to pass a law, restricting the, this company's ability to, you know, express themselves, which in essence is their expression is not allowing people to express themselves. If that, if that makes sense. So it's kind of a strange argument, but, um, you know, you see, I'm not a personally a, a big posting on Facebook person. I think I've may have had one post and nine years total. I do peruse.

I do browse. Um, I think you post a good bit more than I do Joshua, but, uh, that's something you see from a lot of people, especially people who are very politically, you know, really want to put their political opinions out on Facebook, which is a large percentage of the population. I feel like that that uses the platform, but it's, it's amazing how many people you see that are, you know, I'm back from my 10 day ban.

I'm back from my 15 day ban. Have you ever been banned from Facebook, Twitter, any, any other social media outlet, Josh? No, you know, I think I did. I got real confused one time and I can't remember what I was posting, but if you, if you're a Facebook friend of mine, I usually it's a picture of the kid or some song. I remember like, I'm not really, uh, I'm not a political guy to start off with, but I feel like I did get like, uh, I got one of those little things that appeared on my posts. You know, I can't remember what it was like, almost like one of those vaccine things. I didn't get put in Facebook jail or anything, but it was, it was a really innocent post.

And I remember that now, but I guess that's just the algorithm and something caught its eye. I can't remember. Yeah. Facebook jail. Yeah.

I was going to say the only thing that happened recently for me was, you know, we went to a Duke basketball game and, uh, I posted the Cameron crazies just to kind of get that atmosphere. Cause it's been so long since we've seen the kids in there going nuts and the, apparently the video was too long and they could make the, they could make the song out. So there was copyright infringement. And so they muted, they muted the video and blocked it, uh, because I was not paying royalties. Yeah.

You have to, you have to put like a disclaimer that you don't own the rights and even then they can still come back and they can still take that from you. Yeah. And the other thing I was going to throw in too, guys, cause social media, everybody's, you know, got their opinion on it. But one of the things, one of the reasons I got on social media a number of years ago was for a high school reunion. Right. And then everybody and their mother that I went to high school with descended upon my head in the next two weeks.

That was crazy. But the other thing I've noticed too, it's a great way to keep up with people. As you said, Joe, just checking in because you can see how the families are growing. Uh, we're so far apart now, we're spread out all over the country, but you can see how the cousins and the aunts and the uncles and some of your best friends, some of your college buddies, their families and how they are kind of growing up. And you don't have to see them physically, but they're there on social media.

You can do that, or you can change the world by sharing about your political opinion. Morgan, I got an old timey question for you. What's the back? But I forgot about that back before my space. What was that yearbook?

What was that call? Cause that's what the, that was the first one that connected people. Yeah, I guess, I guess so. And there's, there's been kind of an offshoot with, with Facebook, uh, cause it's got its own page, but yeah, there's, there was the yearbook, but, um, you know, I, I was not on Facebook and, uh, they're like, Hey, you got to jump on Facebook. And so when I did that, I probably, I graduated with around, I want to say 375 seniors from Watauga high school in Boone, North Carolina.

And I bet you 200 of them got in touch with me in two weeks. That's amazing. I remember the first time I figured out what, cause I think you had to pay for yearbook.

There was like a free part of it, but you could sign up and it was by class. I was like, Hey, everybody's, I was so happy. I was like, everybody's all right.

Everybody's still around and you couldn't really communicate with people. But man, that seems like that was, that's like a, you know, a long time ago, man, hot dogs cost a nickel type of story there. That's it's good stuff. Well guys, we've got to take a short break. We've got really important stuff to get to on the other side. You're listening to the outlaw lawyer, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer Whitaker and Hamer law firm managing partners there again, practicing attorneys here in the great state of North Carolina, 46 combined years experience. And we talk legal topics each and every week. And I referee between these two. They do a fantastic job breaking it all down.

And we also have a lot of fun along the way, but it can get serious, but we do like to kind of sprinkle in the fun. So that's coming up next. If you've got your own legal question that's been burning and you need an answer, you can call the firm 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. You can also email the program questions at the outlawlawyer.com. We'll use it. And of course, keep your name out of it, but we'll use the question in an upcoming episode.

Check out the website, the outlawlawyer.com. And we've got movie tournament, the bracket. We've got another pod to announce for legal movies. We've got a sweet 16. We've revealed half the bracket. We will get to another four teams of four movies coming up on the other side. We're back right after this.

The Outlaw Liars back. Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, your hosts. Whitaker and Hamer law firms, where you can find them during the week. The managing partners there. Practicing attorneys here in North Carolina.

Offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina, and Gastonia. And again, 46 combined years experience. We've talked about some very serious legal topics, different cases that are out there. And now we get to the really, really hardcore stuff. Josh, we're into our bracket for legal movies. Catch us up.

Go. You know, I've been meaning to put this on social media. I hadn't done it yet. Maybe I'll get around to it this week, but so we got a 16 team best legal movie, all time tournament. We got a couple of brackets.

We've already talked about the black and white pod. That was To Kill a Mockingbird, 12 Angry Men, Miracle on 34th Street, Inherit the Wind. Still haven't watched Inherit the Wind.

I got to get on that. Um, the next bracket we revealed, uh, was, uh, My Cousin Vinny was the comedy bracket. So we had My Cousin Vinny, Legally Blonde, Liar Liar, and Jury Duty. I left out, I left out Big Daddy. I wish I had put Big Daddy.

I just watched Big Daddy again this week. Yeah, that would count. We could always redact Jury Duty. Yeah.

I was going to say, Pauly Shore doesn't need to be in the tournament. That, that may be, we may amend it and then pretend like it never happened. There was a play in that no one knew about and Jury Duty got bumped. Yep.

Jury Duty is on the COVID, the COVID protocol list. I was watching Big Daddy and the kids have seen that one a million times and we were watching it, we're watching it. And then the whole last part of it's that court case.

I was like, man, that would have been perfect. But all right. So this week we've, we've, we've got two pods left and me and Joe talked about this and we kind of changed this week. We had this as kind of action bracket, but not a lot of action legal movies when you go back.

Yeah, not a lot of action in the courtroom, my brother. So we, we changed this to action slash thriller, and we'll probably lose action after this, after this broadcast and just call it the thriller bracket. But so we got the number one seed.

I kind of got these set up as seeds here. So the number one seed in this bracket, I've got a movie, which I have seen and enjoyed at the time, but the devil's advocate. You guys remember that one? Is that Keanu Reeves? That's Keanu Reeves. It's Al Pacino. It's a good one. I don't know if it's my number one seed, Josh, but I can see it.

I can, it's got some heavy hitters. It was very popular at the time. So well received. I think it was well received. Yeah. I think all of these movies were pretty well received.

Now. I probably haven't seen the devil's advocate since it came out. So I don't know how that holds up. You never hear about it anymore. It's never on TV. So maybe it doesn't hold up very well.

I don't know. It holds up well, man. Keanu Reeves is ageless and he looks the exact same today as he looked in that movie.

So if it's a movie starring Keanu Reeves for the very most part, it's going to hold up. Johnny Utah. Sorry.

This, this next one, I gotta be honest. I never saw this one, but it seemed pretty popular, everything that I looked at. So Primal Fear, does that sound familiar? Is that a movie? It is a movie, Josh, and it, and it is a very popular movie.

It doesn't surprise me. You haven't seen it. Richard Gere, of course. But, but yeah, very, very solid movie. Edward Norton makes his film debut as an altar boy in this movie. And obviously Edward Norton, a very, very good actor.

So this, this is the movie that gave the world Edward Norton. This next movie, this is another old timey story. This next movie, I was at a Best Buy.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I wasn't at a Best Buy. I was at a Blockbuster video. And for those of you who don't know, back in the day, you go to Blockbuster and then have the tapes that have been watched a certain amount of times.

They throw them in a bin and you can buy them for like a buck. These are VHS tapes I'm talking about. This wasn't a DVD or anything like this, but I bought, I picked this one up as a dollar buy saying, you know what? I might watch this. And I think I watched like 15 minutes of it, but I put it here on the list because it came up a lot. That 15 minutes was strong. It must've been so strong, man.

So strong. So Mississippi burning. So that, that made our list here as kind of, there was like a lot of action scenes in it. Gene Hackman. I remember watching it and saying, man, I think I turned it off and watched Hoosiers is probably what I did because Gene Hackman is in there. And I felt like watching Hoosiers would be a lot more fun.

A little lighter. Yeah. And so our last, our last pick and I think this could be number one, Josh, you haven't seen it, but you should watch it. I highly recommend it.

A time to kill classic. Matthew McConaughey. You've got, you've got, you've got Samuel L. Jackson who plays a great role in the film. You've got Kiefer Sutherland, who is a terrible racist.

Does a fantastic job playing a terrible racist. But if you haven't seen that one, man, you got Sandra Bullock, a veritable who's who of people in this movie, Josh. Well guys, I know we've got to wrap this up and it's been, now we've got 12 of our 16 teams revealed from the action thriller bracket, just to recap the devil's advocate, primal fear, Mississippi burning and a time to kill. And we have one more bracket to go looking forward to that.

I want to remind you too, that if you've got your own legal question, you can get in touch with Josh and Joe Whitaker and Hamer law firm, call the number 800-659-1186, 800-659-1186, or you can email your question to the show questions at the outlawlawyer.com. Guys, closing thoughts. I'm looking forward to this. This next bracket is going to be tough for me. The drama bracket. I got to really, I don't watch a lot of drama. It's like every movie ever, man. So, but I'm excited and I'm looking forward to you actually watching some of these movies, Josh. Come hop on it. This show is drama.

All right. The outlaw lawyers, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, Whitaker and Hamer law firm, another show in the books. We'll see you on the radio next week. Your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law in North Carolina and how these laws affect the average North Carolinian. If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly.