Preparing video...
0:00 / 0:00
How CNN Got Crushed By This Lawyer For Smearing A Navy Veteran - DansDeals Podcast Special
3,888 views
DansDeals sits down with Velvel Freedman, the attorney who represented Navy veteran Zachary Young in a landmark defamation case against CNN. Discover the untold story behind the case, the challenges faced, and how justice was served for Zachary after being unfairly smeared by one of the largest media outlets in the world. Velvel shares key insights into the legal process, the significance of this victory, and what it means for accountability in the media. For more info on Velvel Freedman click here: https://www.fnf.law/attorneys/velvel-freedman Episode recorded 1/22/25 in Miami, FL.
Categories:Lifestyle/Travel
Comments
Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
you call them out of Bill of the trial
you guys call yourselves fair and Report
the news but you're not reporting this
case everyone else is and so he went
through all their testing and training
and then he worked for the CIA for many
years in order to get punitive damages
on step one we needed to prove that they
primary intend to harm the jury finding
itself removed the cap from from phase
two we are back with another Dan's Deals
podcast we're trying something a little
bit different today we are here in the
law offices of fredman Norman Friedland
here with attorney go Freedman nice to
meet you he just won a recent defamation
case against CNN and was awarded
punitive damages I think that was the
first punitive damages awarded by a jury
against a mainstream media since like
New York Times V Sullivan is that right
we've been trying to figure that out but
I think that's right yeah I asked Chad
GPT this morning and it said it was
right well let's let's go with that yeah
I'm feeling pretty good about it
definitely in a very long very very long
time yeah yeah incredible I saw like
National chire and and Gawker against
Hulk Hogan but those aren't mainstream
media those are tabloids yeah and also
Gawker wasn't a defamation case it was a
invasion of privacy case so slightly
different okay yeah different standards
okay very cool so I'm JJ from Dan deals
I'm Dan and I'm v ville V Devon how do
you how do you figure out which name to
actually use complicated I've seen it
reported three different ways now yeah I
asked the Wall Street Journal to flip it
to velvel but or V and they they said we
use legal names okay I said well you
know I think you should use the name I
want to be called by but they Wen
unpersuaded I'm surprised they wouldn't
just call you by the name that you
requested yeah I was like you called Joe
Biden Joseph Biden every time you right
yeah no they they they didn't seem
persuaded look my parents are balua so
when I was born they called me Devon I
went by Devon till I was like six or
seven then we became religious and I
thought velvel was the coolest name ever
so I refused to answer anything other
than velvel so then I was Ville for a
long time and then when I started in the
law no one could pronounce velvel
so the folks on my firm just shortened
it to Vel cuz they could handle that
easier and it just kind of stuck so I've
got all three now
yeah I answered all of them now point
but do you prefer the media call you
velv absolutely no I signed my pleadings
as Ville I sign my my website's up as
Ville um my legal name is Devon Still
and my bar license is under Devon so
you'll see in some of my filings it'll
say like Devon Vel fredman in quotations
okay but yeah no every everyone calls me
Ville or Val I mean I can relate I'm
like denil Daniel Dan I don't even know
what my name is at this point the best
is your boarding passes where it says
Danel correct middle initial is a word
to the wise is parents should not give
their kids a middle name that their boys
a middle name that starts with letter A
or else you will have Gabriela or
Daniela or something and like oh is this
your wife's boarding pass where is your
boarding pass I'm like no no that that's
me Daniel a so that makes sense actually
I never thought about that so I kind of
want to just jump right into the CNN
case and and hear some background uh
because a lot of people have been
talking about it I think it's been
covered by every single media Outlet uh
CNN actually covered it they in the end
you called out you call them out a bill
the trial you guys call yourselves fair
and Report the news but you're not
reporting this case everyone else is
everyone else had these huge articles I
mean like 20 minute read articles and
you go to S and it's like is there a
hundred words on this even afterwards
there was nothing totally bury it
shortest CNN article in I've never seen
anything like it give him credit though
they reported it they did they did
report it so huge story huge news
congrats on the win really incredible um
full disclosure it's my brother-in-law
married his sister I actually saw a post
recently you were on The Dan deals
forums
2011 uh posting about an elsat course
Christal how did you even remember
that's before even started working at
Dan's Deals before I started working at
Dan deals before I ever met him or or
married into the family right years
before yeah that so I was surprised you
even remember that he signed up for an
account one and only post it was it one
post yeah I was trying to you know we we
had no money back then at all so we were
trying to make some money so I was
teaching the Elsa I was tutoring the
lset and I think I thought it was
probably a good place to try to were you
married at the time yeah I got married
in 2009 started law school a few months
later so we had you know my wife was
working as a preschool teacher making I
think it was like $1,000 a month as
she'd get up at like 5: in the morning
take the subway yeah pregnant it was
terrible in retrospect we should have
just taken more loans but right she did
that and I was trying to teach the elsat
so it must have um I that must have been
the Genesis of that post right and what
was what was it called back then want we
so this is a funny story yeah want my1
180.com that's right yeah I was I was
looking for jobs and I wanted to PO
somehow tell folks that I had gotten a
perfect score in the L you were in law
school at the time when this yeah I was
well I had as soon as I taken the test
and and so I got a perfect score in the
LSAT and as soon as I did that I I
started trying to tutor to make extra
money and I was able to get you know
decent rates at that time because it's a
rare score then once I was in law school
and I was looking for jobs I was looking
for a way to signal to potential
employers that I was pretty smart Beyond
J for your resume for my resume um but
like it's considered like um taboo to
kind of talk about your elsat score so I
was sitting there with my wife and I was
like I can't figure out a way to do this
like I think I just can't do it it's
just too much of a faux PA and she goes
well why don't you just call the
business something like want my1 180.com
or something like that's brilliant right
both from like an advertising
perspective and from like the the
purpose I wanted it for so I did I put
it on my resume I created the website
wy1 180.com and like had it let
employers know that you got the 180
without actually saying that you got 180
exactly right it's a great stry she was
really smart yeah
so it worked yeah so that's where I
think I think I created a like a Gmail
account and that's that's how that
started right I think I considered
hiring you did you really to tutor me at
one point I was looking into it I ended
up going with Els set by fish I guess I
didn't do a good enough job I I think it
was more expensive he was or I was you
were oh really look CU fish is offering
what my 175 and he was offering what my
should have hired Dan for the
bark that's so funny yeah well I guess
fish is doing a class of 30 kids at a
time so you can't really compete on
price with that that's true like you
were doing one-on-one I was doing
one-onone I remember what it was it
might have been like 150 or 200 bucks an
hour something like that yeah right so
yeah so I mean he did a full course I
think it was two grand and if you're
doing 150 an hour it's obviously more
and Russ F worked out got into n League
law school dropped out worked this guy
now
so and now you got to put ivy league
Dropout on your resume which always
looks good that's true he was also a
backdoor part of the trial team we had
him coming in and Consulting and helping
us on a bunch of I heard about that I
mean that's awesome it was pretty cool
he's responsible for some pretty
significant parts of the trial I'm sure
we'll get into that in a little bit
absolutely okay so so I guess let's just
recap really quick so you said you you
put that on your CV right you got a 180
and where did that lead you uh ended up
applying to all the top law schools I
thought I was guaranteed to get in
because I had a perfect outset score in
a 40 from yiva but found out pretty
quickly that at that point in time the
law school admission Council that
aggregated all the data created these
reports that basically ranked me against
all prior applicants from my school
which were zero other applicants so all
their reports just said like
insufficient data insufficient data
insufficient data um Harvard Y and
Stanford which were at the time the top
three I think they still are had never
accepted a candidate like me before went
to like full Yeshiva for all the years
beforehand and had you know a bachelor's
in Hebrew letters is that from Miami or
who yes from Miami yeah so I got
rejected from Yale I got weight listed
at Harvard and Stanford I got accepted
into Columbia got accepted into
Northwestern with a full scholarship use
that to get some money out of Columbia
then I ended up reaching out to Alan
dwit to see if I can get into Harvard
right and he was really great and and
talked to me for a little bit asked me
for some materials he could use at the
time I knew nothing so I gave him
absolute useless material and he kind of
lost contact with me and I went to I
went to Columbia a side note I spoke to
Professor dur Switz maybe was a year ago
or so he told me that after that year he
felt kind of guilty that we had lost
contact and he helped a new student get
in and Harvard has changed their policy
and now accept students so and told them
I'm taking
responsibility that's amazing yeah Isn't
that cool Harvard does take yiva kids
now they do yeah yeah that's right so
evidently it's uh it was Professor
dershwitz who did it and he did it
because he felt guilty didn't help me so
yeah so for all the people that went to
Harvard Law you got me to
things that's amazing so after Colombia
after Columbia I went to uh boyel and
flexner which is a very well-known
litigation Boutique um David boy is a
very famous litigator I was there for
about seven years and we started our own
firm in 2019 been here ever since and
how many lawyers are at your firm now um
something like 25 wow so you just
started how many years ago 2019 so five
years ago or so yeah it was August of
2019 yeah working for you now that's
incredible yeah it's been we barash
we've had a lot of success wow okay no
complaints so so brief recap of the
previous couple cases the big sure like
I mean you you I think you told me I
think you told me that the CNN case came
from one of the previous cases right
yeah I feel like it's always going to be
like a Snowball Effect I can't even
imagine like what's coming now we got a
lot of yeah a lot of inbounds thank God
yeah that case we had a uh a Bitcoin
litigation cryptocurrency case that went
to trial the end of
2021 and we ended up having a month-long
Federal jury trial we got $100 million
from the jury then it after prejudgment
interest it became 140 wow yeah and so
that that had a lot of press and a lot
of attention and Zach the client in the
CNN case saw that verdict come out and
he was like I want those guys that's
amazing yeah he reached out to us I mean
a bunch of other lawyers too and
eventually he he chose us smart man I
like to think so it worked out for him
so Bitcoin case I remember the could he
claimed he founded Bitcoin right and
then that was proven to be untrue I
guess Satoshi Nakamoto Satoshi Nakamoto
yeah you know when we when we picked up
the case in in mid 2017 he was a I think
a legitimate Contender for Satoshi okay
it was Craig Craig Wright yeah I say
legitimate cautiously because there lot
of people that said there's no way based
on some of the things that he did and
some of the tests that he failed but
there was a significant contingent of
people who thought well there might be
something here and that was in part
because the guy who took over after
Satoshi Gavin andreon kind of vouched
for him and said oh this is Satoshi oh
interesting and so when we picked up the
case we actually thought like who knows
like this might really be real and so we
we we litigated it that way but as time
went on you know Craig became became
more and more apparent that he was just
constantly saying things that were
untrue even under oath um and forging
documents nonstop to the point where the
courts you know really hammered him on
it and you know said nothing is more
inimical to the administration of
justice you're forging documents you're
lying under oath and wow so you know his
claim to the mantle sort of kind
of and that was kind of through the
depositions and the trial yeah and the
experts we retained like we had forensic
experts that would come in and review
the documents to kind of you know
because you look at a document it looks
okay but then when you open up the
metadata inside the document you can see
that it's been manipulated when it's
been manipulated or he used things that
we call like pgp which is pretty good
privacy it's like an encryption key and
he didn't realize that the pgp
encryption key includes in a stamp of
the document a date and time but not in
like human readable format you need to
convert it from computer language to
human readable but people that know
yeah and so we'd convert the pgps and it
would be like you know allegedly signed
by Dave kimman years after he died
right like is this even like in a word
like I save a word Dock and email it to
someone they could dive into the word
dock or this is like more of an online
like resource protocol document so I you
know it's a good question on word docs
um certainly PDFs include those those
edits yeah in history and like we'd see
you know we'd open up the PDF and look
at the metadata and you'd literally see
a tag where it says like PDF text edit
and it would be like the Open Bracket it
kind of looks like almost like the HTML
like websites a little bit and so you
could tell it had been modified once you
open the metadata on it and we and we I
remember we had a cross exam I
cross-examined him at a sanctions
hearing because we move for sanctions
based on all these you know lies and
fraud and everything and we had a
hearing and I I you I wanted to talk to
about the metadata and we were really
nervous about like the judge saying well
how you asking this Layman about the
metadata but he claimed to have been a
forensic document expert so before I
asked him anything about the metadata I
was like you're a forensic document
expert aren't you he's like yeah of
course I mean he was very right very
full of himself and um and he says yeah
and so then I went right into the
metadata and sure enough the other side
objects and the judge was like he seems
to be filing no problem like he's an
expert you know right it's like all
right and then he ended up getting so
mad at me during that cross he threw a
piece of paper at me no way yeah it was
a little anti-climatic because when you
throw paper it kind of just
like hit the floor he didn't make an
airplane out of no he didn't or ball it
up even and like Chuck it but the the
judge turned around he goes doctor right
you throw another thing in my courtroom
you'll be in handcuffed so fast your
head will spin oh wow and that got that
that got him kind of rattled so what's
up with you and judges getting heated in
the CNN
case when a lawyer makes
misrepresentations to a court uh it's
it's a pretty big deal I think you know
the lawyers are supposed to be officers
of the court and everything they say to
the court needs to be you have to have
complete cander to the tribunal and it's
our ethical obligations and many many
lawyers take that very very seriously
and if the court feels putting aside
what happened in the CN case but if the
court feels that a lawyer has lied to
them or has misrepresented things to
them that can blow up real fast and I
think that's what we saw in the CNN case
I think judge Henry felt CNN's lawyers
had had had lied to him we had we
believed it too based on what we had
said you know they had some technical
defenses to it so I'll leave them to
defend their own conduct but the judge
obviously felt that they had lied to him
and uh that's that's what happened you
know you get you get a really angry
judge if that happened right so okay
background Z re Give me the give me the
the three minute rundown of the of the
history of the case so Zach reached out
to us about the case um he told us there
were a bunch of other you know first
amendment and defamation lawyers that
were looking at the case and so we
looked at it too what the time frame
like when did he first re out this would
have been February this was February of
2022 so half a year after the pull up
like that yeah about that right exactly
and actually the only reason I remember
that is because at trial uh CNN tried
claiming that Zach was in touch with us
in December and then there was documents
that were lost they tried implying that
it was you know we had advised him to
destroy documents of course this is
outrageous and so I ended up using a
privilege log to show when the date of
our communication was first used which
was in February so it was posted to that
time frame so yeah so Fe he reached out
in
February and you know we do our own due
diligence in the cases so we reviewed
the segment the video segments reviewed
the digital article tell us what what
was his claim what did you feel looking
at it the first time yeah so I a little
careful about attorney client privilege
stuff here so got to be a little high
level but you know he basically said
here's here's this video segment it's it
says things about me that are just not
true accuses me of operating on a black
market being a criminal on CNN.com I
guess at that time yeah you could go
online and watch it you go on their
Facebook page and watch it the archives
still had it so you could see it all
over the place and so we were able to
watch the video segment we were able to
read the digital article that it was
about and talk to him and he's like I
didn't do anything illegal I never did
anything criminal I think a lot of
people watching have no idea what Zach
does did leading up to this seg right so
I mean it came out of trial Zach's kind
of restricted from being able to talk
about it but a lot of this is now public
so it came out of trial was Zach started
off as um a Navy SEAL and he was in Seal
training for about three years he got
injured at the end of SEAL training
trying to do this really dangerous
maneuver with like a boat filled with
sand like docking it on rocks in water
or something and like the whole team
needed to like lift it and something
happened and it fell on him and it
resulted in some serious spinal injuries
he tried to rehabilitate that but he
couldn't finish the Seal training at the
time so I think he served the Navy for a
little over three years MH and then they
charged him honorably with all kinds of
medals and stuff we went through that
trial and he was very good there went
back to school finished his education
and then enrolled in Blackwater which is
a private government contractor
protected the CIA and other government
officials that were traveling through
Afghanistan and Pakistan for them uh and
then while there the CIA kind of picked
up on him and noticed what he was doing
and recruited him to come work for them
and then so they poached them from
blackwat basically exactly and so he
went through all their testing and
training and then he worked for the C
for many years he was uh he equivocated
on exactly when those years were he's
not supposed to disclose exactly when he
was and was not in the government
service does the CIA pay better than
Blackwater it's it's actually
interesting he's he's a real Patriot
right and so he would go overseas and
train like the SSD like the Saudi
Arabian well they're called the Gip but
he would he would the United Arab emirat
Special Forces and stuff like that and
they CIA and we asked well how are you
comfortable doing that he's like these
are us allies like they need to be
westernized if we don't do it that
vacuum will be filled by China or Russia
or something else like talked about how
Saudi Arabia is the foiled Iran at all
times like they're huge Ally to the
United States because of the Sunni
Shiite Muslim fights they're they're
just enemies and so that's very useful
to the United States so so working for
the CIA could have even been a calling I
guess for someone who wanted to be a
seal I I I don't like I can tell you a
funny story when the um when the Massad
did the Beeper The walki Talk
and beeper operation in right historic
yeah Zach called me and he was flipping
out he was F he's like you do not
understand what this takes he's like
this is unbelievable he's like only the
Israelis could pull this off he's like
then of course I got into the bait like
who's better the CIA or the
msage and he's like well you know like
you know he won't he won't give you a
straight answer on that but he's like
resource wise the CIA has to outspend
them like a million to one I'm sure
that's true I'm sure that's true I was
talking more just like tactics you know
I mean c can you imagine the CIA ever
authorizing an operation like that I
mean this the the G to pull that off is
unbelievable it was crazy but it was so
cool to see somebody who has that kind
of experience like really ner out about
it be like you have no I that was
unbelievable like what an operation like
it it's like an airline price mistake
for us yes exactly exactly you know he
was he was real impressed with it so
that was cool so then when he left the
government service he began kind of
changing what he did into a service for
other governments so it was like a
revolutionary idea where he would take
these large corporations these huge
defense contractors he'd go work for
them and then train other sovereigns
special forces their spies and things
like that and so he began just kind of
going corporate in terms of servicing
large corporations for their needs
whether it was the Saudi araban
government to create their CIA or
whether it was to extract people from
Afghanistan on behalf of large
corporations he was kind of servicing
large corporations in the security and
intelligence sector right so you have
sweet business to be in it was awesome
it was awesome like the things he did
were insane yeah yeah we got into some
of it at trial where he was literally
teaching spycraft at the trial like how
to you know's like surveillance
detection he's like you really don't
want to like bend down and tie your shoe
and look in the mirror and I'm like why
not right you'll get made immediately
and then he's like you're it might have
been two people trailing you and now
it's going to be 40 people trailing you
with a beacon on your car and air
support and it's like what happens when
that happens he's like then you're done
like right because we're talking about
China you're talking about you know
Russia you're not you're in hostile
areas if you get made you're done and so
it was like it was really neat to listen
obviously he was very careful about the
details he could expose about it but he
talked about brush passes and dead drops
and it was it was I mean for me as a guy
I mean I was just like tell me like tell
me more you know like what else and you
know so Co it was so cool that's amazing
um okay so the so the backdrop is he was
getting people out of Afghanistan for
corporations right and CNN ran this
story correct yeah and the story
portrayed him as a black market criminal
that's what we argued it you know used
word Black Market over and over put
banners or labels of Black Market
underneath his face by his name we argu
Black Market has one dictionary
definition which is illegal Market you
know trading any illegal activity and
then the other thing we argued was that
you know as a whole the entire reporting
gave what we called a defamatory gist
meaning like kind of like the gist of
the segment all of it together gave this
impression of Zach being a bad actor
praying on Desperate Afghans um which of
course was not true because he never
took any money from any Afghans right
they had like a technicality right that
they won pre-trial that because he
posted on the internet means he was
targeting Afghans like like on the
internet he was advertising to them and
it's a little bit like legal like like
come on like yeah sure I post on the
internet it doesn't mean I'm
targeting yeah everyone no that's true
that's exactly right they did they they
won summary judgment that he had
advertised to Afghans but what was what
was a little unfair about that I thought
was the Court's reasoning in its summary
judgment order was very clear he
basically said you posted something
online so by virtue of doing that you've
you've advertised to the world and he
used this example he's like if I'm
watching TV and the judge has a full
head of hair right he goes and you know
they're advertising hair transplant
surgery or something like that it's like
I may not be the target audience because
I don't need hair transplant surgery but
at the same time you have advertised to
me and so that's totally fair like I
agree with the judge's conclusion but
then when it came to trial it was like
the the finding that was told to the
jury was he advertised to Afghans and
then when we tried putting a little
context on there CNN was objecting and
the court kind of made us do a dance but
I we eventually got it in and I think it
was effective that they understood what
was happening which was yeah I posted
publicly but I had a clear target
audience right this the chief security
officers the CEOs the Coos on LinkedIn
those are the people I was really going
after right right and when if someone
would individually contact him he was he
would not interested right right and we
saw that over and over again in trial
which is like an Afghan would reach out
his first question was do you have a
sponsor able to fund right and then when
they would say no or they wouldn't
answer he would discontinue contact yeah
right so okay so that brings us
basically up to the trial right yep well
we got some really good pre-trial wins
too I think which was yeah so you know a
lot of lawyers like to use summary
judgment which is this device we use in
litigation which is have the court
resolve things and they try to win the
whole case with it and I've kind of
taken a different approach to it in a
lot of my cases where I'm not trying to
cut your head off a sumary judge I'm not
trying to win cuz that's very difficult
but I will try to inflict like some
Mortal wounds on you right like chop off
your arm you have to come to battle with
only one arm and so one of the things we
did great metaphor yeah and no that's
really what happened and so what we did
is we moved for summary judgment on like
discreet issues factual issues and the
first issue we did was Mr Young did
nothing illegal Zach did nothing illegal
or criminal and we argued under summary
judgment standard they have no evidence
he did he says he did not which is
evidence he did not now the burden
shifts to CNN to put some evidence and
we had them under oath and deposition
saying we have no evidence that he did
anything illegal we never had evidence
he did anything illegal then they said
we never reported that which of course
was a question for the jury to determine
but you know so so we went to the judge
and we said hey there's evidence that he
did nothing illegal his own sworn
statements there's no evidence he did
anything illegal so CNN has failed its
legal burden fin as a matter of law that
Zach did nothing illegal criminal and so
he granted summary judgment on that so
that was a big deal right because so
you're like surgically deciding what to
put forward for summary Josh that's
right yes exactly and then we did it
again and we said find that he's never
taken any money from an Afghan and we
did the same thing Zach said he's never
taken any money from Afghan you have
seven years of his bank records there's
no transfers from any Afghans you've got
his income tax statements that show all
of his income that they all got all that
in Discovery all yeah they got all it in
Discovery it's all accounted for right
so like there's no evidence that he ever
took money from any Afghan fined he
didn't and you know they came back again
trying to argue garbage and was not
there and so the cour granted it again
so they walked into trial with the jury
being told you right you accus this man
of operating in a Black Market which we
argued sole dictionary def was Black
Market was illegal Market they got told
I have already decided that Mr Young did
nothing illegal or criminal I have
already decided he never took money from
an why did they say black markets of
gray Market what was I have no every
knows there's a gry market there's a
black market like there's obviously a
difference between the two they can't
argue that a black market is the same
thing as a gry market they were I you
know who knows but the case in order to
get a punitive damages against IM media
defendant you've got to show that they
did it with a primary intent to harm him
right so you know one could argue that
black market sounds a lot worse than a
gray market and if you look at their
like their pitches all of these emails
like came out like the progression of
the story those were unbelievable I mean
it really seemed like they just wanted
to get him and we got to figure out how
we're going to get him and like you see
their legal team and they're like I
don't know if we should run
this like wow yeah so you know I don't
know why they did but that would be my
speculation that's why they used it you
do you think that going just cuz Dan
mentioned their internal Communications
and I remember to me the one that stood
out the most was one of the reporters
saying I'm going to nail that Zachary
young mother effer and I mean that to me
was like the whole case with intent to
harm it was such a crazy thing to hear
from a reporter regardless of the
context just a crazy quote to hear from
someone reporting at someone else do you
think that and just to add context to
that sometimes you read an article and
you're like wow they really have it out
for this guy but you don't have proof of
that you just think that as you're
reading it or you're watching it and
like wow I'm like looking at the there's
so much evidence that they really were
out to get him you know it wasn't just
so what I'm wondering is is is it gonna
change that they're no longer gonna say
it but they're gonna still do it or or
is there or is there going to be like a
is it like a real Reckoning cuzz I'm I'm
sure their egos are bruised all the
reporters involved in this story I mean
they were arguing very hard that they
did nothing wrong and in court of law
they they were proven wrong right I mean
there was a point in the closing
statement CNN's closing arguments where
their lead counselor David axod tried
arguing that if the jury found for for
the plaintiff then all the reporters in
the story would bear like a Scarlet
Letter essentially which got an
objection for me that was sustained
because that's not a relevant
consideration for the jury like it is
what it is but certainly CNN seems to
recognize that that this finding has
hurt The credibility of of the reporters
invol and the network I'm sure and the
network who was the the the expert she's
a professor she teaches ethics and
journalism Emma Lacy berau Emma Lacy
berau do you think they're going to
change like at that level of uh
standards and practices within CNN
because of this case I don't know you
know the the standards and practices
document we we put into evidence we
didn't show portions of it you know
you've got to there's all kinds of great
stuff and you have to just make
decisions of what you're going to show
the jury and so stuff Falls in The
Cutting Room floor as you're trying to
fit everything into an hour and 45
minute presentation right but there are
portions of that document that go into
detail about defamation cases and how
Banners are really difficult in
defamation cases like you got to be
careful about banners and oh W and and
talking about you know tough language
like that in documents can be used
against you in defamation cases so there
they're aware of it I mean it's common
sense but they're aware of it I I don't
know I hope I hope it just stops you
know but or are they just going to start
saying like more allegedly and more like
well based on this Source who claims
that you know yeah so someone someone
asked um I posted on our forums if
anyone had questions to ask you today
and somebody said when all the news
networks were saying in the B like right
for 107 they said Israel bombs Hospital
in Gaza you remember that and it turns
out it wasn't them it was like the P or
whatever the Hamas competitor did it and
the terrorists are the actual ones that
did it to their own
misfired rocket and all the headlines
said Israel bombs Hospital in Gaza and
then like in small things in the article
maybe it said you know Source Gaza
Health Ministry according to according
to
so first of all is it defamation to run
a headline like that or as long as they
say Source anonymous source this person
if if CNN would have put in the article
you know Source this activist that
reached out to them in the first place
right is that total cover from
defamation no it's not you can't just
attribute it to its source and then you
know be okay with it it'll help
obviously but the courts are still going
to look at the whole context of the
communication so could there be a case
made for international news like that of
the state of Israel against of the BBC
they're going to claim fog of War
they're going to claim that they didn't
have clear EV I mean if they have clear
evidence they should have to what point
up to what point is there a case is I
want to hear from you is there a case in
your opinion where there could be I mean
these fake news headlines everying
single day right Elon Musk doing a Sig
hail uh at the inauguration I mean just
so clearly out of context but everyone
runs with it the good people on both Sid
story that that's been so well explained
right but you have leaders of the Free
World still running that St narrative
when it's clearly been refuted when it's
been the most fake news it's it's
clearly intentional defamation in my
opinion to be able to say things like
that is there legal remedy one day or
because it's such big news and such a
commonly done thing it's never going to
change and the court isn't a remedy so
you know every case has to be looked at
in its own facts like so it's tough to
make generalized statements but like for
example if you take the the example
about Israel and the Gaza Health
Ministry source of B Israel bombing a
hospital defamation law in the United
States is very protective of speech in
general even this case against C that's
why it's such an accomplishment to have
gotten puno damages it's so difficult to
prove right but it becomes even more
difficult to get any kind of liability
at all when the subject of the story is
a public person or a matter of public
interest and the standards get ratcheted
up way higher and so one of the legal
Maneuvers CNN tried doing was they tried
claiming that Zach was a public person
based on based on the fact that he made
some posts on LinkedIn about you know I
mean everybody's public then that so
that's what we argued exactly what we
argued and the court agreed with us and
said no and so because of that there was
this like two-step inquiry which was was
in a negligent and that was the yes they
committed defamation per se yes they
committed defamation by implication and
then you got down to show malice show
that they knew it was untrue or had
substantial doubts as to its actual
falsity and then published anyways and
published with the primary intent to
harm and that malice standard would get
incorporated into the first question on
a matter of public person like Israel so
you'd have to show that not only did
they make the mistake they knew it would
probably not true and they went ahead
and published it anyways it's very
difficult to get that kind of evidence
without getting into discussion overy
and you probably wouldn't get that far
in these cases also Israel I'd have to
look at whether a sovereign can sue um
probably but like there's a lot of
issues that start jumping out when you
try to think through that so there's a
higher bar for that it's a higher bar I
think practically you you're not going
to see lawsuits from those press from
those press stories whether it's
possible in some technical way it
probably is possible somehow but it's
it's real tough you do see Trump going
after you know more news organizations
and having that settlement now with ABC
and and still going after more right so
that's true and he's public he's he's uh
I mean I guess they're just figuring
let's just settle and not drag this out
which I guess is my my first question is
why did CNN not settle this case they're
down O2 count coming into this they I
mean you you've really got them where
you want them why did they not settle
before I don't know you'd have to well I
will tell you this did they make any
offer so there was a public mediation so
the court ordered the parties to mediate
that mediation failed okay so I
shouldn't say I don't know CNN did try
to settle I think Zach was unwilling to
settle and we we I've been quoted
publicly you know going back a year or
two ago already saying he would not
settle like he wanted everybody's going
to settle for the right price I mean
there has to be a price mean I don't
know about that Zach well because think
about it Z was but the fact that if if
it is a big I guess people don't know
the size of the settlements I if there
was obviously if people knew there was a
big settlement they clearly know CNN is
saying you know we messed up here uh
we're very happy with the settlement
okay I can't can't disclose the the
number uh but we're very happy with it
was that CNN strategy the whole time to
wait and see if they would get you know
called out for punitive damages and then
go in and settle you know that day
dangerous strategy a very dangerous
strategy and and it's left I mean in my
opinion it's left uh a scar on their
reputation I mean we now have a jury
first of all it aired all their dirty
laundry right which was all of these
messages saw the light of day that you
know may not have ever seen if they were
able to settle I want to asteris that
because I really don't think Zach would
have settled until he got his verdict so
even if you got the settlement that you
wound up getting he wouldn't have taken
that number beforehand oh yeah he was
not settling this case till verdict okay
I think it was unique in that there were
two verdicts that were necessary so
first was did they commit defamation and
how much money do they have to pay and
are they on the hook for punitive
damages right and the jury said yes they
did defamation they should pay $5
million and yes we need which was lower
than you wanted it was lower than we
wanted but you know you got to think
about the demographics of where you are
and that area of Florida is just not as
affluent as Miami or Broward so it was
not unexpected that they would come in
lower okay but they answered the next
question which was the most important
question in the affirmative right saying
yes CNN needs to be punished right which
is uncapped in Florida correct it is
capped Yes except in Florida it becomes
uncapped if you did it with the intent
to harm the other person okay and since
in order to get punitive damages on step
one we needed to prove that they a
primary intent to harm the jury finding
itself removed the cap from from phase
two okay and that was something you
argued to the judge yes yes that
convinced him that was a really cool
argument yeah but I think it's right
it's very gamar cup argument because you
already have the that's
right yeah it was already established
that they did it with malice so if they
did it with malice and Malice requires a
primary intent to harm then the jury's
already found that they had a primary
intent to harm which should remove the
cap not needed yeah so Zach really
wanted two things he wanted CNN to be
proven that they acted with malice
against him and they wanted he wanted
obviously a settlement but he didn't
want to settle without that even if CNN
admitted that beforehand that wouldn't
have been enough for him I think he
wanted Vindication and I think he wanted
to stand up to you know Zach's a really
unique person he's got a really unique
background and I think he did not like
the record as it stood and CNN had
already apologized but that wasn't
enough and he wanted to prove himself
right and I think he also was doing
something for societal good I I really
think that was part of it for him he's
always been a I was talking about this
before and one of the things that really
fired him up was you know one of these
women activists called him a mercenary
and he got really upset about it he's
like I'm not a mercenary I do get paid
for the work I do but I only do work in
the interest of the United States and so
that that sort of thing really fired him
up and I think he felt this was almost
like his duty to go the distance so
nothing CNN could have said would have
changed his M okay I mean you'd have to
ask Zach but my impression is no he was
going to verdict and then because he got
the verdict that said yeah they lied
about you they owe you money and they
did it on purpose right and to hurt you
and they knew it wasn't true at that
point I think he felt he made his point
and he could bow out gracefully and and
take a settlement from C I mean if if if
if the jury decides they want to award I
mean I think you had asked for 30 days
of Revenue was that something that c
would have appealed do you think 100%
they would have appealed yeah 100% so it
would have gone on for another who knows
how long yeah years okay then who knows
if you know who knows what the Appel
cours would do I mean I think we'd win
but you never know and so yeah so you
take the haircut and you settle and he's
happy with that you say it was a haircut
I didn't say there was a haircut okay
fair enough I didn't say there wasn't a
haircut either to be clear I can neither
confirm nor deny your comments then I I
saw the jury asking like oh so how much
was it like they wanted to know they
want to know too yeah absolutely that so
funny I bet you want to know what the
jury was thinking oh my God desperate
desperate to know have any reporters
reached out to the jury pool that you
know of not I'm aware of whereas the
lawyers are not permitted to do that um
but the public is so and the jury is
allowed to contact us so does the public
know who was on the jury that's a great
question how would that connection be
made even so there's vaer which is the
selection of the jury and that's done in
open court it wasn't broadcast live but
it's done in open court so if anyone was
in court they could have heard the names
of the jurors is something that come out
Freedom of Information who went to the
jury selection or you mean like a like a
foyer request that's a great question I
don't know the answer to that I don't
know the answer to that but it's
certainly you know like it was find out
and there was a lot of press there that
weren't broadcasting live but they were
there so they know I think the names of
the jurors but I mean even if there was
one juror who's gonna speak and do a
podcast like this I mean he's he can't
prove you know what the whole jury would
have ruled for pun of Damages you would
never know what they would have true
decided collectively sure that's true
and and they didn't even finish hearing
the evidence you got settled before all
the experts even got they never even got
together to discuss the puni of damage
right that was correct they decided that
we were entitled to it right but they
didn't talk about a number a number
right well I mean who knows but right
they shouldn't have yeah so you
mentioned that this was in this County
in the was it Florida Panhandle it was
in Florida yeah Bay County so how did it
wind up there we filed up there
okay I want to hear more about that more
about that strategy yeah you know you
are allowed as a plaintiff to choose
your Venue and you can choose it for any
reason you want and as long as venue is
proper and venue was proper Bay County
both because the defamatory content was
broadcast there and CNN had Affiliates
there and so under Florida law we were
able to go there but you could have
picked any County in the country
theoretically uh if it had aired there
and if there were potentially Affiliates
there yes we could have chosen any in
the in the country you know I'm I'm a
Florida lawyer also New York a lawyer
and DC lawyer but you know it's easier
to be home so that that was helpful I'd
rather be in Florida and then a lot of
our preliminary research showed us that
Republicans were much more ready to hold
CNN not just CNN but media to account
than Democrats it's not you know a lot
of people like oh you love the
Republicans it wasn't that we wanted
Republicans that hated CNN it was just
that our research showed us that
Republicans were more willing to hold
the media to account and it kind of
broke down Republican Democrat that way
Independence Independence kind of broke
with us too uh but so we went and found
a county that was both favorable from a
court perspective the trial courts in
Bay County have a great reputation the
First District Court of Appeal which is
the pellet Court over there has a great
reputation so we like the court systems
there when you say reputation what does
that mean like you know they're they
they get things right they're quick they
they they issue opinions that we like
and things like that there are minor
differences in Florida as you go so
Florida's the big state and there are
different district courts of appeal that
sit over different areas of Florida so
for example Miami and qest is what we
call the Third District Court of Appeal
Broward is the fourth district court of
appeal with you know Palm Beach County
and so on so the appell court that sits
over that geographic area sets the law
for that area and it is uniform
throughout Florida unless there's a
disagreement between two of them so you
can have minor differences in law in
Florida depending on which District
Court's Jurisdiction you're in until the
Florida Supreme Court will resolve it
and then it becomes uniform so the law
in the first DCA we thought was good for
us the courts in the first DCA we
thought were good courts smart courts
fast courts and so we liked it from that
perspective and voted like 80% Trump
right it's like 73 72.8 I think per
Trump voters or not not Trump voters but
Republican voters so we had everything
we wanted good law good courts and a van
we call it like a jury pool of people
that we thought were ready to hold the
media to account what's interesting is
just just over the past year I've seen
numbers about you know people that still
respect the media believe the media is
truthful and even among Democrats it's
really fallen off a cliff over the past
year or something like that we and in
this case also I think will is was I
opening for both Republicans and
Democrats as far as honesty from the
media are you you know our jury was
three three three Republicans three Dem
you able to ask them when there
selection how they're registered how do
you know that well you you can look them
up okay so we know their names and then
you can look them up so so you just do
that instantly when you're selecting
absolutely yeah yeah yeah we had jury
Consultants with us to help us you know
pick the jury and help you know figure
that out it actually came out during
trial Zach testified to the fact that we
had a jury consult we were just like oh
my
goodness it's got to tell the truth so
we can't object how did that question
come up CNN I think CNN asked who was in
the room with you when you were
preparing with your lawyers and Zach
answered truthfully I mean Zach was
super honest right and there was this
portion of the trial where CNN like
played some Shenanigans and got a
document we had never seen and like
sprung it on us and and the judge
wouldn't let us talk to Zach and so we
were internally talking like what's
going on and everybody was just like
three years Zach has never lied to us
ever lied to us like we just have to
have some confidence in our client it
turned out he you know that was rewarded
cuz it was true he had not lied to us
again and CNN ended up getting lambasted
for it so so what was the breakdown of
the jury it was 3 three I think it was
three Republicans and three Democrats
wow so the county did not come into play
really with that 73% yeah number really
didn't it's a Sixers six jurries yeah
well he selected eight um because you
have two alret at Jury number two after
the first week jury number two called in
sick she came off the panel that brought
in alternate jur number seven became
part of the panel and then there was
another Alternate which was jur number
eight and she was dismissed at the end
of the case because she wasn't needed so
the breakdown of the eight was four and
four then or what was the uh the
breakdown to eight was I don't there
were some okay was there it might have
been independent I don't I don't
remember but we had three Democrats
interesting three Democrats I mean why
so what happens is you get we had 40
something people in the room and I get
to ask questions CNN gets asked
questions just wasn't aired and you
don't got to ask about their politics
right you don't really get to ask about
their politics we didn't ask about their
politics I'd have to think about whether
you that'd be permissible or not there
might be cases where it'd be permissible
but in this one we again we didn't
really care that much about it right I
mean you you did do it there because
it's a republican County now I mean
that's part of the strategy yeah that's
true but like when it came to picking
actual jurors there were things we cared
much more about than just their that
wasn't dis appointment for you that it
was three and three I mean I would have
loved to have six jurs that absolutely
hated CNN but that that would have been
a fair trial right and so part of part
of me was but representative of the area
might have been you know 5- one or four-
two yeah uh the the statistics broke
down to be like basically 42 was the
statistically likely scenario it wasn't
disappointing to us I think when we saw
the final breakdown of the jury panel we
were like okay so CNN's going to get a
fair trial and that actually in some
ways that kind of was meaningful to us
because we didn't want people to be like
oh they only won because of this like
and so we thought we had a winning case
and had known what I know now like
before we filed we might have filed
somewhere else we didn't know what the
evidence was going to show when we filed
the case and so obviously as lawyers
it's our it's our job to do as best of a
job as we can for our client and that
includes filing where it's beneficial
for him to file in retrospect would you
have done it in Miami Dade possibly yeah
because I think we would have gotten a
higher first number from the it was
before Discovery that's right we didn't
know oh you didn't know how damning the
evidence was at that time exactly oh
interesting what's the order would be
when you find things out you file right
and then once you have a court case you
can start getting documents from the
other side you really knew you didn't
have any smoking guns at that point you
didn't know that you would win these
summary judgments okay so that changes
everything as far as strategy go that's
true that's true now I will say we got
very lucky with judge Henry um because
I've been I you know I've been
practicing for a long time now and he is
one of the smartest judges I've ever
practiced in front of he might have
gotten someone unfavorable here I mean
who knows yeah who knows who we could
have gotten I mean we have great we have
great judges here too but we also have
you know not so great judges and I you
know what big County might be similar
but there's there's less of them so it's
easier to kind of look at who you might
get he was phenomenal I don't always
agree with his decisions I think he got
some things wrong obviously I when I
Lose I'm I I don't think I should have
lost but overall I thought he did a
really good job of kind of calling balls
and Strikes and following the law so so
you think based on just the average
income in Miami day versus Bay County is
it twice as much something like that
probably you know I don't know the exact
numbers that the damages would have been
yeah they would have been more I think
they would have been more ready to give
a higher amount you know and I think
jury think I mean I'm guessing but I
think this jury thinks they gave Zach
the world with the 5 million but I agree
I think but it was a lot less than his
potential what he could have made I
think for emotional damage for a regular
person say they got a million dollars
that's like retirement money right for
like like that's like you're set for
life you got a million dollars you know
and and to someone making 25 $30,000 a
year that's a crazy amount of money to
give and and and I do think that it does
show what a great case you argued you
know that they did that so does the fact
that they settled the case you know in
between phase one and phase two does
that render moot the ruling of phase one
or how does what what are the what no I
mean the case is dismissed so but that
doesn't get rid of the jury finding a
jury found after a full trial that they
defamed him they did it purposely and
maliciously to hurt him and that you
know he they should be punished as a
result of that in determining what the
actual punishment should be we never got
that far so it it does kind of meaning
we can't take our $5 million jury
verdict and go bring it to CNN and
collect on their assets for it because
the settlement replaced that verdict
right but the finding is still there
it's still a fact it happened and you
know nothing nothing he got what he
wanted which is clearing his name
basically cleared his name and you know
he again you know you remember the the
money is made in these cases on the
punitive damages so you know they
settled that portion of it and like we
can't talk about it but Zach is Zach is
very happy okay yeah I I feel like both
sides were arguing very much about the
punitive as the as the Crux of the
issues and their closings especially
right um I feel like you did it about
you know patriotic Duty and everything
like that and and the actual numbers
that should be awarded it was more left
to the expert right I I feel like you
didn't really focus on that because you
knew and they knew as well that it's the
punitive that that really matters here
that's right that's what we were really
going for that was that's where the meat
of the you know that's where the meat is
so to speak so yeah 100% we were
watching on the Deal's forums watching
the case live at least the the
settlement part of it everyone's you
know watching what's going to what's
going to happen in phase one phase two I
think the Judge asked you at one point
if you if you want a thousand if you if
you want a fine for something that came
up and one of the guys is really hoping
you're gonna say well now I can afford
it no no would
not I think his reaction might have been
uh well how about how about we triple it
or how
we yeah um but what happened then what
was that about so I think that happens a
lot with judges when one side is really
acting out and not acting nicely they
will in an effort to appear kind of
bipartisan or Fair they'll kind of like
throw flak both ways and so I think
CNN's council did a lot of things that
really irked the judge and I kind of got
caught in some of the crossfire and what
ended up happening was so we were in
phase two and we were going to put on
evidence of out their finances and they
had a financial expert they wanted to
put on the stand and we had certain
deposition testimony from their CFO we
wanted to play and we had filed a motion
that morning at like 5:30 in the morning
to exclude their expert witness saying
it didn't meet the standards necessary
to be an expert that we had sent to the
other side these are the portions of
your CFO Depot we want to play and so
CNN got up and said they waited too long
to do this this is like happening right
now we're we're unfairly prejudiced they
could have done it earlier and so then
judge Henry looked at me and he's like
why did you wait today to file it and so
I started going down this pathway of
explaining to him well what happened was
we got permission to add punitive
damages and when that happens you get
the right to seek Financial discovery
which is super intrusive you know what's
their net worth what are their revenues
everything like that so they immediately
appealed that decision because it's
appealable right away to the first DCA
and so instead of us sending Financial
Discovery and then them filing a motion
to stay the financial discovery pending
resolution of the appeal to see we just
agreed that we would hold off on
financial Discovery until the first DCA
issued its
decision then what happened is the first
DCA this was like two months before
trial no this was a long time ago oh wow
yeah like years ago okay and then what
happened was the first DCA issued his
decision affirming the trial courts
adding punitive damages to the case so
soon as that came down we went back to
CN and said okay now we're doing
Financial Discovery they filed what they
called a motion for hearing on Bonk
asking not just the three judge panel of
the first DCA to decide it but to have
the entire first DCA rehear the case and
we went to judge Henry and we said
they're going to lose this and it's
wrong and we never agreed to keep it
stay until it's resolved right basically
and so he kept us stayed until the first
DCA denied the motion for rehearing in
Bon then CNN was like oh we might
petition to the Supreme Court the
Florida Supreme Court for review and we
were like judge and at that point CNN
never did it and it never became an
issue we and we we moveed forward and so
what I was trying to set up was to
explain to him I was like Hey and when
that happened I told you that you're
going to jam us up on financial
Discovery and like everything's going to
get late and at one point you yourself
even said I don't know when we're going
to do these dabert motions which is the
motion to challenge the finances but as
soon as I started going down the road of
hey there was this agreement and went he
immediately assumed I was like sliding
CNN's Council which I wasn't doing
actually that's when he's like hey you
want $1,000 fine and so that's why I
said no but backround I was like you
know were you scared to push back moment
no I mean like I you got to stand up for
yourself right and I'm like no like I I
obviously I don't want to find but also
like I'm doing nothing wrong here was he
seemed pretty happy with your
explanation on he backed off I agree I
mean you you stood up for yourself he
said I take it very seriously when I say
in court yeah yeah I think judges
respect I mean you got to be respectful
you know but you got to also be able to
stand up for yourself if you're too
scared to stand out for yourself for
your client you're not going to be doing
a good job so yeah I mean not all judges
will and some would be like okay $1,000
fine but it is what it is you got to
make your record so see were yamaka
during the whole trial what did what did
it anybody comment on that do you think
that affected anybody's opinions or what
they said I don't think so I mean I
don't know but I don't think so like I
always do I never have not done it yeah
and I think we're seeing more and more
lawyers that are doing that
professionally we wearing yamuk at a
court that's just my personal just what
I see out there but I think especially l
people just expect lawyers to be Jewish
anyways just kind of
fall lawyers in cont yeah it's like
that's like he's Jewish of course he
he's a lawyer you know I just it's like
I feel like it's a badge of honor it's
like oh he's not just a lawyer he's a
good lawyer you know he's a Jewish
lawyer I want that Jew lawyer you know
like so so no comment though from any no
comment from anyone nothing and what
about chabus chabus was interesting I
was there for three shabas because we
got there early but there were two
shabas that were occurring during the
trial and before trial started I flagged
for judge Henry that you know shaba
starts really early and we'd really have
to finish trial at o' something like
that it's like 4:45 or something like
that yeah CU different time zone
different time zone right yeah I think I
even realized that Florida had a central
time I Wasing like oh yeah nobody knows
neither did I until and then like
sometimes have to fly out of Tallahassee
so it's like a two-hour drive but then
you flip time zones and so I'd arrive at
the airport an hour after the flight was
supposed to leave and I was like oh it's
pretty wild that it doesn't just like
you know the time zone does curve
between some states but florid the P
handle so far though right it it really
screw things up I think I first realized
that only when you had asked me I know
that your family had tried flying to you
for shabas and they were oh my God you
guys were clutch on so they're going
through Atlanta and J's like we need a
flight from Atlanta to was the air City
Beach P City Beach and I'm like wow
that's this it's got there the same time
it departs it's in a different time zone
like okay I don't think I even realized
that that was a thing what folks don't
know is at trial my wife was like you
like you just said she was supposed to I
was away from the house for 3 weeks a
long time so we had planned for the
second shabas she'd bring all the kids
we'd hang out over chabas and then she'd
go back Sunday and that way at least I'd
see the kids so she did that and you
can't fly from Miami to Panama City
which is my first surprise I'm like
America doesn't have a Non-Stop to
Florida to Florida flight that was
surprising to me I know I was crazy so
you have to go through another airport
and the easiest way to do it is go Delta
through Atlanta yeah and it's like a 45
minute layover and so they did that of
course they land in Atlanta on the
morning Friday morning of this crazy
once in a blue moon this wasn't for
reconnaissance at CNN headquarters conne
no and it's my wife with four kids and
she gets on this plane and you know it's
it's it's snowing and there's backup and
the pilot is telling her you're going to
take off you're going we're this flight
is taking off and I'm looking at the
background of this J is having me is
this the flight going to take off and
I'm looking at it I'm like nope
so I'm looking at there were there were
zero Delta dep there's nothing going out
and I think this is at noon already on
Friday and she was supposed to leave I
think 8:30 and like zero Delta flights
have left in the past three and a half
hours there's no way this little
Regional Jet is going to take off on
this little flight they've got so many
planes I'm looking at the flight radar
you're literally looking at the actual
planes on the runway line up counted 100
planes I'm counting lined up I'm like
there is no way and then finally at noon
they lifted the departure stop and
there's still a ground stop at the time
for flight going into Atlanta but
there's there's like five flights
tricking out in an hour and there's five
like there I'm doing the math here
there's no way this like so I told JJ
tell Han to ask the pilot like there's
only five flights going out per hour do
you really think we're getting out and
the pilot I mean was the pilot was
surprised like where did you get that
data from like I don't have that data
but I'm sitting home on my computer I'm
seeing the data but the pilot doesn't
have that information of the the rate of
Departures per hour and not many flights
are lined up so my wife is going nuts
with four kids in the plane and texting
with j was texting with you so then
she's texting me and I'm trying to do
trial so but you know just my wife and
my kids so she's like what do you do
what do I do and I was like oh my God I
don't know so then I reach out to JJ I'm
like now can you be on your phone in the
court or was there a recess you can be
on your phone in the court it can't ring
um but it's like we thought the jury
might look at it like disrespectful so I
was on my computer which was open in
front of me and I was taking notes and I
was using WhatsApp and I message on my
computer whatever yeah so I'm so I reach
out to JJ and I'm like what's going on
with this flight like what's gonna
happen and he's like I've looked at it
Dan's looked at it this flight's not
taking off and I'm like the Pilot's
telling her it's going to take off J's
like we see more than the
pilot I'm like how sure are you this
flight's not taking off and he's like
100% sure this flight is definitely not
taking off before shabis and almost
certainly not taking off at all so I
text Ken I'm like you should get off the
plane she's like she's devastated like
she wanted to see me and the kids
everything like that she's like I want
to see you the pilot saying is going to
take off I was like Dan and are saying
it's not taking off I don't care what
the Pilot's saying that flight's not
taking off you might as well get
somewhere nice in Atlanta so you're not
like and it's kind of like if you watch
like Apollo 13 and you're like they have
only so much information on the aircraft
on spacecraft right Houston has the
information from they're the on that
have the computers they know a lot more
they're like well do we need to tell
them that is this information they need
up there on their like no they don't
need this information it's kind of like
I've got all the information in front of
me the pilot doesn't have that level of
information so he's telling them yeah
we're going to take off we're absolutely
going to take off he's telling his
passengers it's going to happen I'm like
there's and that's what he was saying
and so K was like why am I getting off
the pilot saying it happened I was like
it's not going to happen and so she
eventually says to me um the kids like I
told them we should get off they're like
devastated I'm going to give it one more
hour and I'm like looking at the clock
I'm like okay it's still more than
enough time to get to ATL I was like so
I literally wrote her I was like that's
fine but you realize you're going to
have to get off this flight like this is
horrible but she's like I know but let's
just see sure enough an hour goes by and
no progress so she gets off the flight
and and they're still at the gate right
they're still at the gate didn't take
off she eventually was supposed to take
a taxi but the folks she was staying at
said you know like don't get in a car
Atlanta's not ready for snow like take a
train and on the way from you know maybe
45 minutes or so after she had left the
plane sure enough the cancellation came
through JJ's like told
you I was like I didn't doubt you but
yeah and then she told me that so uh
David and Tova Isaacs are super nice
took them in hosted them for sh
unbelievable absolutely incredible and
then uh she said they said that you
can't drive in Atlanta in the snow and
and there were dozens of crashes in
Atlanta that day it was crazy they you
have to take the public transfer there's
like some sort of tram system and she
said that all the homeless also decided
to go on the tram that
day and she's with four kids but she
didn't have any suitcases which I was
impressed I was impressed there was no
check luggage I'm like is there a check
luggage like how you get that up
like that's that's impressive we learned
some stuff from guys and they wanted to
drink because there was snow and and it
was like filled with drunk homeless
people but she eventually made it there
and the headphone picked them up and the
like four-wheel drive vehicle and then
and then 20 minutes before chabas the
power went out yep yep it did oh my
goodness and and and that and then
reminded me when I was flew through
Dallas in a snowstorm to get to Maui and
there was a snow you know crazy
snowstorm all the fight gets canceled my
hotel had no not just no power but had
no water they lost water in Dallas oh
God these others I just do not handle
the snow very well Houston I Houston
today got snow like we do not own a
single snowplow there's nothing we can
do we just have to wait it out yeah so
yeah I'm sure Atlanta is pretty pretty
similar there that uh they did make it
to me Sunday morning okay good by the
time Sunday morning you know after
noonish came around I guess enough snow
had melt I was telling JJ on Friday just
rebooking as soon as you can because he
did that's G to get can that people
going to fill up those flights right the
sh flights get are going to get canceled
too and people going to fill up the
Sunday flight that's always got to think
ahead of you know those cancellations
cuz sometimes oh there's no flights for
three more days that have space yeah
first there you change that flight
before it's cancelled you can you know
get the availability yeah so they came
Sunday okay they came Sunday JJ booked
them Friday before sh there no court on
Sunday of course there's no court on
Sunday I was supposed to be
working for the case but you know family
family's more important so we spend and
that's of course the point of going for
shabus is you can't work exactly like
shabus is when you sp sit there just
like twiddling my thumbs you know it's
like um so you're three shabas in Panama
City Beach whatever that is yeah um just
by yourself well the last one Han was
with me so she came in for closing okay
just her just her my parents watched the
kids did she fly through Atlanta or
Charlotte she flew through Atlanta okay
she flew through Atlanta I thought about
having her go to Tallahassee and then
driving two hours but she flew through
Atlanta no problems and she arrived for
the uh closing arguments and then the
jury verdict and then the second portion
of you know phase two which decides the
amount and then she was there for the
settlement and then by the time was
settled there was like an hour and a
half till shabas started there was no
time to get out and there were no
flights Saturday night in M of shabis so
we ended up uh just being stuck together
and the whole team eventually left
because none of them were religious or
none of them were Jewish uh some of them
were Jewish but not religious and so
everyone ended up departing you know
over the course of chabas and eventually
it was just her and I does every like go
out for drinks afterwards but is there
any
very antagonistic at Parts sure uh I
will say that when it was over you know
we all shook hands and and we were all
joking around with each other so I I
don't know there was no opportunity to
do that but it does happen it does
happen and actually some of CNN's own
Witnesses like what their their
corporate rep Adam Lavine I have a lot
of respect for that guy he yeah real
really smart he was asked to defend like
an impossible position and uh we talked
a little bit after afterwards or that
was Alex marker his no lavine's
documents were super clean leine Mar
five oh oh oh oh oh well markart went to
a concert after then if you you yeah we
used after the actual story air actual
story aired and he was like expressing
frustration that digital didn't want to
push us publish a story because digital
was like this is a flawed story swiss
cheese you know that sort of thing so he
got frustrated and he wrote to another
colleague of his he's like something I
don't remember the exact quote but
something along the lines of whatever
like the story aired it's a new day I
went to a concert or something like that
it's like the guy literally like burnt
Zach's house down and like went Wonder
these guys does someone like him does he
get blowback you know after you know see
has to pay out a case like this we don't
know obviously I have no idea I mean you
hope that they change their standards
and they promoted him so yeah it was
pretty crazy they w a motion Lim on this
I didn't think they should but um you
allow to talk about it now yeah it's
just not allowed to go to the jury okay
so he was promoted after so what
happened was he was like senior National
Security correspondent and then he did
the story and then
negotiations hit for his contract
renewal and then shortly after that
started we filed our motion for leave to
amend to add punitive damages where we
take all the bad evidence in the case
and we put it toward the judge and we
say hey this is real bad you should let
us seek punitive damages and the courts
Act is like a gatekeeper to like not
allow garbage cases through and within a
month of that or something like very
very shortly after we filed that motion
CNN paused his contract
negotiations and and then did an
investigation and like a month later
resumed them promoted him to Chief
National Security correspondent and gave
him a raise and so we moveed c not think
they were going to lose this case was
there just arrogance here I well I you
know my closing had a big theme of
arrogance yeah I don't know but they did
that and so we wanted to say hey not
only did CNN do this they were rewarded
the guy that did it right but uh the
judge kept it out we were allowed to
talk about his career trajectory so
there's a cross portion of the cross I
was like hey why was that not relevant
he said there was no evidence that there
was any kind of quidd pro Crow or any
kind of like bargain for Exchange in
relation to it so therefore it's more
prejudicial than probative meaning it
would hurt CNN more in the eyes of the
jury than it would help us prove our
case okay I thought he was wrong because
I thought you know part of punitive
damages analysis part of the analysis of
whether they need to be punished is how
do they react to this and here they
reacted by by promoting the guy right
which seems like that you know they were
happy with what happened here which is
something that shocked me the most and
and you told me you just got to you know
play the cards your de was your partner
in at the firm Kyle Ro he did a
fantastic opening yep and he was on the
impression he had 40 minutes I think and
in reality he had like an hour and 20
minutes an hour that he could have used
and you didn't play the actual segment
because you were trying to condense
everything into 40 minutes and then when
CNN got up there and said that they had
an hour you know before they started
he's like no no judge it was 40 minutes
like I'm sure about this and he ended up
he misunderstood made him mistake and
CNN added to their opening you saw what
they did they had 20 minutes left and
they didn't even show you the clip
that's how much they don't want you to
see it that's how much it start arguing
it was like so dirty so unbelievable and
then you wanted to bring it up again how
they use that against you and they're
just like not in my courtroom and like
but they that's pretty they started it
right and you said you just got to deal
you know it's just so much is determined
before a trial starts that I I I never
realized that that much is decided
behind the jury's back I guess oh yeah
ton of it tons of it I mean there was
there was a lot of stuff you know
there's so many moving Parts it's
impossible to have total control over
everything and so another really cool
example like that that ended up working
out for us was we wanted to admit the
definitions of black market and and so
we we were just going to scan the
dictionary pages and the the scans
weren't coming out great and it had all
kinds of other words and the judge was
like I don't want all these other words
to go in so he said you know what we'll
just pull the online versions so the
associates pulled the online version and
had that first page of the of the
definition they sent it to CNN CNN gets
up and objects like hey it's only page
one of nine and so I was like I don't
know what the other pages are they must
be like advertisements or something and
so we asked the associates to pull them
and review them we're in court and some
you know sometimes these things happen
it just kind of slipped and they sent it
to CNN CNN said oh we've looked at it
okay and the judge admitted into
evidence then I looked at it and I saw
that it had this portion the Websters
version had this portion of the of the
web page that said like common usage
compiled from around the internet and
then it was like a read more and if you
click read more it says like Websters
does not endorse these definitions
everything like that but that wasn't on
there and then there was an example of
somebody buying like tickets like
secondhand tickets on the black market
and so we ended up going back to the
judge and we're like hey we want just
the dictionary definition it's got all
kinds of other stuff in it he's like no
it's in it's in and so we were
frustrated with that too because that
you know shouldn't have been in there
and it was kind of like it wasn't dirty
by CNN it was like one of our Associates
should have picked it up and they didn't
um and so it was what it was but then as
we got into trial ax Rod put up Adam
Lavine a CNN a CNN's lead lawyer yeah
and he put up Adam Lavine their
corporate rep and and you know we ended
trial every day at 5 and so he clearly
dragged that examination out until
4:59 so that the jury would have to go
home listening to the favorable
testimony of Adam Lavine now nothing
wrong with that strategy you know
absolutely but he made a mistake because
he ended at 459 and there was still a
minute left so what happened was he
ended on this issue with these black
market and he puts up the definition on
the screen and he goes look you see here
buying tickets and remember one of the
core issues in the case was does black
market mean an illegal Market or can it
mean something else and so he's like
look here you see Websters has this
definition of buying tickets on the
secondhand Market secondhand tickets is
a black market if you buy Taylor Swift
tickets from StubHub is that a black
market you Adam lavine's like no it's
not and so he sits down to rest and kind
of leaving the jury with this idea that
black market doesn't only mean illegal
market and up until that point every CNN
person on the stand said we understood
it to mean an unregulated Market that
was their whole defense they had nothing
so now he finally hooked in to some
legitimate Source semi legitimate source
of course it didn't have the Webers
doesn't endorse this and he was going to
leave him with that overnight to come
back the next day but he messed up
because he left a minute so I didn't ask
I just kind of got up there was like
judge I have a question I can ask in a
minute and he kind of looked at me like
he's like okay and so I said can you put
that back up there and he puts it back
up and you know obviously I knew this
had come in and I wasn't and I have to
have a plan for it so I didn't know that
he was going to use it for LaVine I
thought he was going to wait for closing
but he pulled it out for LaVine so I get
up there and I go hey do you see here
where it says that the version is
compiled from online sources and he says
yeah and I go listen isn't ticket
scalping illegal in some states he's
like oh I don't I don't know where the
law is now in every state and I was like
okay but you can agree with me that
there are some places where ticket
scalping is illegal right and he goes
yeah and I go well in those places then
if you buy a secondhand ticket then you
are doing something illegal and you are
working on the black market aren't you
and he's kind of looks at me he goes
yeah and I was like okay judge we can
end for the
day one minute sure I like I got in a
minute and like it just completely
ruined great for his plan was to leave
him with this idea that black Market's
not and now they're going home being
like Oh yeah why did you leave the
minute did he I just don't think he I
mean this is literally the 98 yard kick
return you get to the one yard line and
then you're celebrating and get tackled
like are you serious that's literally
what happened or they drop it they they
drop it to like you know spike it they
spike it at the one yard line and it's
just a fumble was huge mistake cuz now
they went home not only did they not go
home on lavine's testimon they went home
thinking oh number one ax Rod's you know
CNN is misleading us about what the
definition is and number two the plan of
is right right vel's right about this
like oh it is an illegal market and
that's consistent with what's being said
and then they went home with that sat
with it all night so it was like I think
he didn't think I'd get up and try to
use a minute right like but I was like
hell no
hell like can't let him go home on that
so wow so mistakes happen but you got
you know when they happen you've just
got to be ready there were a few there
were a few highlights of the case in the
comments on the live stream they were
called it a Perry Mason moment you know
that was one of them um I loved the
theater and acting part oh yeah yeah
well that was you that's why you loved
it
yeah so okay so this is crazy actually
but um this isn't the closing this is
not closing the cross of markart okay
Dan watch your closing which by the way
if no one has seen the closing yet on
this case go look it up it was
unbelievable closing I I feel like you
have to put that on your resume and so
many people online were watching until
then we're like we're not sure we we
know we really need to listen to closing
and they heard your closing I'm like wow
like that was just a dagger that was one
guy in our Forum he said he started
listening to the case by CNN's defense
that's when he started right and he was
thinking Sia's pretty good and then he
heard the closing he's like forget it
it's over it's over it's done that's I'm
glad to hear that that's what you're
supposed to do in closing so it's good
to hear I was able to accomplish
absolute dagger yeah this was a big deal
so one of the main themes of our case
like the biggest theme of our case was
CNN shows theater over truth and the
reason we did that was because we had
this video this behind the-scenes
footage and Discovery you know CNN has
to produce everything to us one of the
things we asked for was all raw footage
that you took to create the video
segment and they turned that over and we
were watching it and you know I don't
know if CNN didn't watch it all the way
to the end or what during Discovery but
in deposition I I you know we got this
what happens is markart makes a phone
call to Zach on his phone and it shows
Zachary young as a contact and there was
a big issue in trial of whether that
call was real or not because the the
call history wasn't there but markart
said it was real so whatever putting
aside whether it's real or not after
that call ends the cameraman tells Mark
can Verizon not tell you definitively if
that was made or not made on Signal I
don't know but also it was too late
nobody had tracked that down during
Discovery and now like the evidence is
like game set match like now you can't
add stuff anymore got and so we were
able to take advantage of this that you
know and it was actually something we
realized in the days leading up to trial
we're like hold on a second like we
always assumed he made the call but then
when we started looking through the
evidence were you there for that too I
think you were there for that too yeah
JJ was there for that too was like
helping us kind of just like as be like
almost like a jury consultant like
giving us like an outside perspective of
how the evidence looked and he went and
he's like wait a second like there's
there's missing there's no Miss call
here there's no outgoing call here and
so we started making it a theme of the
trial like well that's the evidence
shows and like you know but putting
aside whether he made that call or not
after he makes that call which clearly
rang he then picks the phone up again
and the the the cameraman tells him to
like pretend like he's making a phone
call and he sits there for like 30
seconds staring at a phone pretending to
call like with a concerned face on like
a fake ring or there's no ring at all
it's just sitting there and they used it
for like what they called b-roll footage
or whatever it was they called it and
then that fake call the the undisputably
fake Call makes it into the final video
segment like where you see markart
staring at a phone call he's like not
he's has this concerned look and the
voiceover is like we tried to call
Zachary young but he didn't pick up
makes him look real shady when he's done
and the guy's like okay cut we've got it
all markard puts his phone down and then
he takes a step back and he raises his
hands in the air and he goes theater
like with this like English accent yeah
and it was like what a startling
admission right like oh my God you
literally are are admitting that what
you're doing was theater and so it was a
big theme of our case was theater versus
truth right theater versus truth so well
you know I cross-examined him on this
and are you reporting the news or are
you making it up exactly and their and
their standards say we do not create the
news we report the news right and so we
we slammed them on that and so in the in
the cross I had this great moment where
I was like was theater right and he's
like no and I was like yeah you know you
you that theater makes in he's like no
it's Boll
Footers oh
well
theat I was just like you can't even say
it you can't even admit what you did
right it was like this really dramatic
moment then his lawyers get up you know
CNN's lawyers get the C and then we
played the [ __ ] yeah it was like all
building up to like and then you had him
saying the you know so then what happens
is his lawyers put him up right and they
they they get to ask questions and so
they go what what is this whole thing
about theater and he says you know I'm
embarrassed to admit this but I'm a big
fan of SNL and I'm a huge John Lovitz
fan and John Lovitz has this character
was the thesbian or something what's it
called or something like I forgot what
the name of Master thesbian and he gets
up there and he goes theater and he says
it in SNL he's like I was really just
like there was this whole big production
and like we didn't get the shot and I
just I tried to like I don't remember
his exact words he said something he
always does yeah he like he always does
this it's like it's like a thing and it
was like this like excuse for why he
said theater and I I listened to it and
I was like damn like obviously it's
still bad that he said theater but this
kind of made it less bad right and I was
like this was a big part of our case
yeah and I was really frustrated about
it and so I was immediately like almost
comical a little bit yeah he kind of
like took some of the like sting out of
the admission into being like okay he
was joking maybe shouldn't have been
joking but like it was a bad joke not an
admission of guilt and so I was pretty
frustrated so I I immediately got on the
the chat with all the lawyers the team
and I was like how do you think that
came across and people are like you know
uh and then I I got on my family
WhatsApp chat too and I was like hey is
anybody watching and JJ was watching BOS
was watching my sister and I think my
sister goes like I feel like he
accomplished in like making it less bad
unbeknownst to me JJ decides to go on a
crusade the man looks up JJ what's your
hourly it's seriously it's unbelievable
he's like wait a second hold my beer
right and I knew I knew before cuz cuz I
remember talking about this to you
before the trial and I remember cuz you
even talked to him about this during
deposition like you mentioned and he did
not mention this right there was no
mention of this before this was clearly
and I could say this as a non lawyer non
involved in the case this was clearly
made up with the lawyer before trial
coached exactly what to say like oh oh
that's great yeah use that in my opinion
this say no reflection of the firm and I
did not employ clearly this was set up
just watching it I I could it didn't
pass the sniff that it was so clear to
me that this was made up prepared and
they're like oh that's great use that
you know and he's really good talker
right he's got like a silver tongue he's
yeah he's just really yeah I mean
there's a reason he has how many three
emys or whatever is he great he's a very
talented reporter and and I think he's
still going to be great after this
segment and I think hopefully reporter
or actor he he he elevates you know his
uh okay so we asked him the emies are
not in theater that's of so any so I had
some background okay so J that in trial
I did in depo and at trial I was like
the theater the Emmys they're not in
theater right no no J it was all the set
up it was a whole theme through the
cross because we knew this video was
coming so it was a big deal that he had
like managed to take some of the sting
out of it a little bit and uh JJ's like
hold my beer and he goes on SNL and he
looks up every single episode that this
master thesbian John love's character
ever appears in and then he goes onto
YouTube and on five time speed watches
every single one of them
to see if John litz actually does this
acting this theater thing with his hands
and I had asked Chachi BT if he does and
GPT said he did and so I was like damn
it but JJ why I don't trust chat GPT
besides for like the case of the lawyers
that like went to trial with chat GPT
evidence on getting a trouble for that
gives a lot of hallucination it does
hallucinate you need you need to watch
what it says okay so he watches every
single one and then he finds this this
like interview of Love its where he
talks about his words and basically the
long story short is JJ figures out the
line isn't theater it's acting not
theater and so he tells me this and he's
like V it's it's acting it's not theater
and I was
like is I have no way to back it up
right and he's like I'm telling you I
was like how sure are you he's like I'm
100% sure as sure as that flight's
getting
can got canceled didn't it right the
words I told you cuz I was so I said I'm
willing to bet a billion dollars that's
what I told I'm like I I'm actually
willing to bet a billion dollars so the
first thing I did I go back to GPT and
I'm like give me the source and he gave
me a video so then I sent the video to
JJ I'm like watch this video and he's
like nope doesn't say it and I was like
how sure are you he's like I'm willing
to bet a billion
dollars that's a lot of money you
know this is some serious trust by the
way on the Fly trusting me in court I
felt the love you're on WhatsApp
communicating yeah WhatsApp literally
talking about the live stream so he
tells me this I was like okay I have to
go for this right and and so I get up
there and I'm recrossing him right
because we called him in direct and then
they cross and we redirect but
technically it's a cross
examination and I got there hey you
testified about this thing about you
know you said it was theater from John
lovit yeah and I was like the the line
is acting not theater isn't that right
and I guess I must I just had so much
confidence in JJ I just said it so like
confident
his his veneer just shattered must shock
just shattered like his face I hope we
could put this on the on the on when we
yeah you could find it I yeah we're
going to put this in in the in the video
Yeah sir you mentioned John litz before
do you recall that yes you said this
famous line was theater do you remember
that one of it yeah one of them yeah
wasn't it really acting you used to say
acting not theer Sor is that right yeah
that's right then then I misremembered
it I thought it was theater so your
testimony here today sir is that you
invoked a fictional character of a
comedy show played by an actor to
explain why you faked a call and killed
a man's career and reputation with lies
and slander no that's incorrect on
multiple accounts his face dropped it
just dropped and he he just was like
humiliated what it looked like to me was
just like humiliation shock surprise
like un and he says something like oh
was was was that the line I must I must
have gotten confus or something and how
did their team when they gave him this
strategy not figure that out it's crazy
like is this really what he thought it's
nuts that's what made me so confident
that it didn't pass the smell test
because you could see it in the way he
presented I could see it yeah knowing
the history yeah um that this was just
something they came up with and hope you
bought it that's it and that was it I
mean it was just it was so his reaction
was so strong to that Revelation
challenged he could he couldn't believe
he had nothing to say that I used it in
closing right I literally was talking
about I like you could see it on his
face like he's just shattered like when
he it's also very rare I think it's very
powerful because it's so rare it's very
he said she said in the trial I thought
Black Market went this was this it was
all from a long time ago you know but to
have something yes no on the stand from
a witness that you're you're questioning
how truthful he is and they're
questioning that and just to have
something so black and white yeah was it
was it clear that he lied or that he was
mistaken could you tell either way it
doesn't matter so it didn't matter
anymore it was like it had credibility
was her credibility was shot the the
explanation no longer made sense like I
think the takeaway was that he was not
being honest that's the takeway I took
from it I think it's takeway the jury
took up hurting him crushing him yeah
really bad and that's why JJ was like a
star of
the like a big moment everybody's like
wow and they look at me and they think
it's so cool but really it was just JJ
like it was did you get a dinner out of
this JJ I owe I owe him one I owe him
one yeah happy to help Ser Justice it's
uh that's awesome he was great he stayed
up to like 4 in the morning the night of
the closing he went through the closing
he gave me feedback and some really
great stuff like one of the things CNN
was also arguing was when it said you
know I'm going to nail the Zachary young
mother effer and then the guy responds
back and going to hold you that one
cowboy and then a couple lines later
marker's like or maybe not maybe he just
slips away and CNN was putting a lot of
like hanging their hat on that being
like oh it wasn't trying to nail him
like he was like maybe I'll get him
maybe I won't get him like we'll see
what happens and JJ's like dude if
somebody slips away it means they got
away despite your best efforts to nail
them it doesn't mean that you let them
off I was like like you know it just
sometimes takes that outside perspective
and you know JJ is real smart on it and
he told it to me I was like oh my God
like I did that in closing and I was
like it's so true meanwhile Jay is now
applying to Harvard
that she have to get my
180 my 180 he's like I dropped out the
first time I'm like you guys really
shouldn't let me I'm saying dropped out
of pen but now that harvor is an option
fora
guys Harvard actually wanted yeah that's
another story you did you got into
Harvard then right what happened you was
early admissions
early and everyone withdrew it but
Harvard's like you really want to
withdraw you know like like are you
sure AR's like AR's like you really want
to withdraw and I'm like I have to and
they're like okay if like if you insist
you
know you mean change change the course
change the course of history you know
what it's meant to be though you know it
it wasn't absolutely that advice that
you the advice that you got to take
early mission from Penn despite you know
thinking you could get into Harvard and
then eventually dropping out and coming
to work for Dan's deal it's the best
thing ever right and and but the advice
itself like you could look at it
negatively like hey that was pretty bad
advice I could have gotten into Harvard
right or you could look at like no this
was the way it was meant to be you
weren't meant to go to law school and
become a lawyer you were meant to do the
career path you chose yeah and it was
meant to be that's advice you got and
advice that was still good advice
because it led you down a path that you
were meant to go down but it's cool you
gets to live like vicariously as a
lawyer by having a brother-in-law that's
doing these high-profile Cas that's
really cool it's aming it's awesome I
mean I'm happy for the free help you
know pretty awesome the first case was
on the house but the next case
one of the guys at Dan deals was like oh
you need a jury consultant I was like
yeah getting lime behind JJ exactly this
guy added real value you know like
multiple times that's awesome so all
right so jury comes back they say that
liable for everything every single count
of Damages so what happens and they go
out to lunch and then walk us through
like what's the background who goes over
to who what's the what's the inside the
settlement negotiation what you're
allowed to say obviously I mean there
had been some discussions between the
parties but like I said there wasn't
really going anywhere so after the jury
came down with a verdict that usually
can loosen everybody up on their
position so the conversations restarted
uh and as soon as they go out to lunch
like you're talking they didn't go to
lunch they took yeah so actually it then
so what funny oh did they so we ordered
Lun I remember when they came back they
wrote to the to the judge that they had
reached the verdict okay and so the bayb
comes out and you know she's like
verdict so everybody starts coming back
in to see because you know they had
asked questions and things like that but
this was verdict and I overheard when
she handed the letter to the Baya she
goes but we still want lunch and I had
no idea how to interpret that like what
does that mean we're done there's no
phase two we're not giving punitive
damages but we're still hungry and we
want lunch right or does that mean like
we know that like we need to go into a
phase two now but before that we want
lunch I had no idea and I'm sitting
there racking my brains like which one
is more like Wier like no so they they
ordered then they reached the verdict
obviously we were staying for phase two
they ordered lunch but then what
happened was the judge pushed us right
to keep going because he knew we had to
end early for shopas so what happened
was you asked me about the shabas thing
so I had flagged early on like months
before trial that I would need to end
trial at 4:15 the judge granted the
request like you know look to CNN any
objections they didn't OB okay so we'll
stop at 4:15 on Fridays they had a
Jewish lawyer too but not Orthodox right
not Orthodox uh did they have a Jewish
lawyer I don't know if they had a Jewish
lawyer a Jewish name is he yeah I
guake Schwarz yeah okay I assumed so
yeah it very well might be so they they
didn't object so we were planning at
Ting at 4:15 but then what happened was
as trial went on like we were falling
way and way way way way behind schedule
and it became obvious that we couldn't
just lose 45 minutes but I couldn't be
there for those 45 minutes so I
eventually just told the team I was like
just keep going I just have to leave
this is the first Friday this is the
first Friday so I did you know I I I
explained what had happened and then and
I just left and you know trial continued
until 5:00 but on this phase two what I
told judge Henry was listen like there's
going to need to be a closing and I need
to be able to give that closing so we
can't like we have to end at 4 I think
at that time like shabas pushed a little
later and we were within a few blocks of
the courthouse so as long as I had like
10 minutes before sh hit like I could go
out and walk home and you know and Han
was there so she would have been home
and lighting already so we would been
okay that was on day two so Jud Henry
was aware of that and so he was pushing
us to keep going so we immediately went
into opening a face to then we put on
our expert who talked about their
revenues and their net net worth and
everything like that while that was
going on I was outside negotiating with
one of CNN's lawyers and so that so the
case was proceeding and we were
negotiating how do you the expert or
somebody had mentioned that 30 days
Revenue how do you determine like what's
a punishment where did that come from
it's a great question it's just a
strategy you've got to think through
what the jury would why not say six
months why not say two months where just
just the blue no we we had a lot of
discussions about why we chose the
numbers we chose
but um yeah you could have chosen any of
them we needed to get an answer from
from the expert that they could AFF it
so that was one thing that was important
and we also again we were cogent of
where we were and so we didn't want to
be asking for a billion dollars you know
the Press reported as billion dollar
case you you we never reported it as a
billion dollar but you know obviously it
had the potential to go very high and so
it was I think the revenues were like 5
million a day right and so you know you
that that was what it was like 150
million or something like that so I
think we just kind of landed on that
number as being like it was a nice even
number 30 days not making them go
bankrupt right it won't make them go
bankrupt but it's enough to there was
also a factor of like I had this thing I
wanted to say in closing which was you
know if you if you want to make a
difference you got to make a dent and
this is a big you had that closing
prepared already not not written but
like in my head I had ideas you know
I've been doing this for two and a half
years so you I have a little note on my
on my phone somewhere with all like the
ideas I wanted to wave into the closing
and so you know there was something to
like I want their their revenue was like
two billion or 2.2 billion and so I
wanted like somewhere around 10% okay I
wanted to say something like if if the
media companies know that every time
they do this you're going to take 10%
out of their bank account they're going
to stop real fast yeah and so we wanted
to to Target that number around that
number and so that's that's kind of some
of the thought process that went into it
but there's no like a 30 days 60 days
it's just you're taking it out of you
got to pick what you think the jury will
buy we thought you know we thought about
you know what was the time frame between
when they started the investigation and
when they published like guess what goes
through my thought is if you ask for 6
days maybe they'll come back and give
you 30 days so if you ask for 30 days
maybe they only give you 15 days of
Revenue like is it is it like
negotiating or are they just going to
buy your argument and say like you know
what we'll give you I think I think Joe
the lawyer that was yeah uh crossing
your expert on the money matters I think
he did it so well cuz he did it very
nonchalant like what would a 30-day
timeout be it was very like
D it's not even a big punishment what a
small punishment be a small punishment
would be $150 million it would be
nothing to wouldn't it wouldn't be
damaging it would just be punishing but
it wouldn't be you know damaging the
that was like the floor I I think that
the CNN people saw that so would you
have asked for 10% would you have asked
for higher than that than in closing or
so we had not yet determined that I mean
this was happening so fast right like
yeah crazy speed at that point insane
and you know we had talked about whether
to ask for numbers in Vader when we were
you know in when we were interviewing
the jury we talked about whether to ask
for him an opening in closing you must
give numbers so we gave some numbers at
closing um but then when we started off
again the phase two it was just being
like it was lightning fast and so we
were out talking amongst ourselves at
lunch break for 20 minutes talking to
each other like what's the number we
should ask how many days timeout should
we ask for where do we want to be and we
were purposely going for something that
was like high but that wouldn't limit us
to like not be able to ask for more
right just if you were asking like 20
million for the original damages and you
came back at five if you ask for three
days maybe they come back and chop that
down by S per yeah except so there's a
lot to think about there because you
know they have to punish CNN and they
understood the idea that like if you
give Bill Gates a $10 speeding ticket
it's nothing that came up with the exper
and what we don't know is they knew from
vadir that the money from punitive
damages all goes to Zach because I tried
to get people out and did get somebody
knocked out for that so I went around
saying hey this is the way the law
allows punishment and you're going to
potentially make Zachary young one of
the richest people in the world are you
okay with that and I got one guy to say
like I don't know that I could do that
right and that that that knocked him off
the V that's more important if they're a
Republican or Democrat exactly there's a
lot of things that are more important
than that right so we got him off but
they knew from beforehand that all this
money is going to go to Zach so and I
don't know because I haven't spoken to
the jury is whether they gave five
because they knew they were going to
wall up CNN on the back here okay so I
you know I don't know what they were
going to do it's also such a different
mindset of what someone's lifetime work
is worth versus what CNN should be
punished with and the whole argument was
that CNN has to be punished that's like
the whole closing the whole everything
was all building up to that punitive so
when punitive got awarded I feel like it
would have been so so much more than
that and I think CNN was also defending
the punitive mainly because that's what
they were trying to fight against that's
why everyone had the same story of No
Regret right what an interesting
decision by CNN I mean maybe M to
apologize and say no regret I think if
they had apologized and meant it
sincerely not everyone take it back like
we didn't agree with that apolog L
liability you know like well the lawyer
said we had to apologize but we don't
actually think editorially it had to be
apologized for and under the law you
really still kind of do need to award
punitive damages in that instance like I
mean the jury is has the discretion not
to so but but it would still be called
for but less because you wouldn't had
necessarily need a deterrent effect and
again at the end of the day jurors are
humans so if they saw real regret and
real
sympathy from CNN you don't need to
punish them as much Monet or maybe you
don't need to punish them at all they
learned their lesson we hit them on the
liability and they you know I don't know
what happened but I thought that was a
massive mistake I think they bet the
farm on winning punitive and I think
that's what their strategy was no regret
we did nothing wrong there was nothing
intentional and by saying like what do
we have to be sorry for was arguing that
point I think and that's when I think
they saw that punitive was coming they
knew just just right were screwed either
way because they had issued this apology
right and then it's like so they had
issued this apology apology non apology
like some of you know legal team wanted
us to apologize we they would get us we
hope it would get us out of the case and
he was just it was just an impossible
position to defend which is why we
exploited it which just like are you
sorry or not in apology everyone's gonna
hate that the jury's gonna hate that
like what is that and then one of the
jury questions was like does a near and
sincere apology like reflect poorly on
the on the organization that g very good
jury questions came out jury questions
were incredible do they always have jury
questions after expert testimony in
Florida you required to allow them to
ask questions unless both parties agree
otherwise okay CNN did not want jury
questions after the first round they
didn't want want before either really
but we wouldn't agree we wanted why why
didn't they want jury questions I don't
know I I is that a strategy is that it
takes a little longer because the jury
gets a chance to ask questions um I
don't know they did not want them and we
does the jury know that they didn't want
them or is that
that's kept from the jury that's
confidential okay but because you didn't
agree to that they were able to ask
questions and they ask great questions
they ask great questions great questions
and and we use their questions
throughout our closings and our themes
Chang your own strategy 100% yeah
because we're seeing how they're
reacting in real time to it so like one
of the really great questions we woved
in was that CNN had taken this approach
where it was like guilty until proven
innocent and technically I mean they're
not a court of law so the but like the
idea kind of resonated and it was a jury
question and we doesn't sit well with
Americans it doesn't sit well with
Americans and we just kind of wo it
through our themes because it was a
juror question right and and another
jury asked like how much money would you
have made if this didn't actually get
asked I think one of the jurors asked
how much would you have made if you were
at 5i so he uh his colleagues went on to
create a new company and that was doing
his sort of thing without him okay and
so one of the jurors asked like how how
much money would you have made if you
were there okay and technically he
doesn't have a foundation to answer that
question like as a legal evidentiary
matter he doesn't know how much he would
have made unless he has a basis and he
didn't have a basis so the judge didn't
ask the question but we knew it got
asked okay so then in closing we talked
about can you imagine how much money
would have made at five you know we can
do that sort thing cuz some of the stuff
some of the things the judge had kept
sealed right what what was one letter
the judge kept sealed yeah he unsealed
it at the end so the jury had asked him
can we answer questions one and two and
then come back tomorrow and answer three
four and five and so he sealed it
because obviously if you answer no to
questions one and two which is did they
commit defamation per se did they commit
defamation by implication if you say no
and no the case is over right so the
idea that they're saying oh can we come
back and answer 345 means that they're
answering yes to at least one of one or
two and so he didn't want anyone to have
insight into the corations he sealed the
letter that was the right move by the
judge I think so it was in a tough spot
cuz interesting that you knew the
questions though even if the judge
didn't want them ask but you could still
address them because what happens is
they pass the questions up and then then
the judge reads us the questions and
then determine then asks if we have an
objection to the questions or if CNN has
an objection to the question questions
okay so did CNN object to that question
or um the judge think I don't remember
if CNN there's a transcript so we can
look it up but I don't remember if C
objected to that question or the judge
just kept that one out on his own okay
um you know we wanted it asked
obviously you know you also have to
maintain credibility so when the judge
is like but what's the foundational
issue you have to concede well you know
there's a problem here are the jury
questions going to generally be
beneficial for the def for the plaintiff
or what do you think I think it it just
gives you yeah I think it just gives you
insight to what they're thinking I'm
just curious why CNN would not want that
kind of insight because they could also
use it to their advantage assume I don't
I don't know why they didn't I don't
know why they didn't but regardless
Florida laws even is that t is that
typical in other states or um There are
rules about jur questions in other
states I am not I'm blanking on what
they are I think federal court they can
ask questions but I don't know if
they're like Florida state court has it
setup that unless both parties agree the
jury gets to ask questions okay and I've
forgotten what the default rule is in
federal court I remember we had a a
federal Tri question not that I watched
a lot of Trials but never noticed this
insightful questions coming up and no
they were really great questions the
jury actually was super super following
along they understood the issues they
asked great questions it was it was and
in fact one of them was was real great
she you know she asked a question and
the witness kind of didn't answer it and
she wrote another and she passed up the
judge and and and it was like answer my
question
I was like
damn like that woman's a lawyer right
there yeah that's great yeah it was
really cool that's amazing so
somebody you got to play this for you so
when you um presented that settlement
offer to Zach right the final one that
you guys took kind of imagine I know you
can't talk about what it was and
anything but just before you presented
it to him kind of imagine you did
something like this
[Laughter]
that brings back a lot of
memories and then you told him he was
just like yes I wish I had done that
right in retrospect did not occur to me
next
time did not occur to I feel like every
judge should Institute this like before
they say like the amount so cn's lawyer
takes you out of they you go out of the
Court while they're while they're
questioning the expert on the finances
and you're negotiating a settlement yeah
like what's the back and forth like all
right we'll give you X and is it just a
regular negotiation or yeah it was a
negotiation I mean obviously it goes
beyond just you know xyxyxy and you know
there's positions and well we want this
and I want this and you know
confidentiality and you know there's
there's things like that and there are
demands made that we said no to we made
demands they said no to I mean like you
know it's it's more than just a number
examples or those are all confidential
what like what one side would want or or
what would uh considerations be in a
theoretical case so that's that's that's
easier like sometimes instead of
confidentiality parties might want to
have like an agreed statement let's say
for example like what are you going to
say if you're asked and so sometimes
that's something that's that's up for
negotiation and and you know one side
might say no we're not agreeing that we
we'll keep the number confidential right
but we won't keep anything else
confidential that's something you could
see in a case like this and then you
know you argue your positions like oh
well you know we're about t the jury for
this much money and they're going you
know you saw what they did and you know
they they found you liable for punitives
like you really want to risk going to
the jury on it you know and then the CNN
will say back well you know you asked
for more money you didn't get everything
you asked for why do you think you're
going to get asked for you know so it's
like you know it's a negotiation back
and forth and is that just with the
lawyers or is like the CN right are they
call corporate no yeah they Authority
yeah they have to get Authority so you
know they you know I I talk to lawyer
lawyer talks to them lawyer comes back
talks to me I talk to Zach then I come
back talk to the lawyer whole CH do
media companies have insurance for this
kind of thing is there is there any
defamation insurance I doubt it no okay
especially when they have two billion in
assets you know all right was that not
like SEC public record like the numbers
that you put up in the court that did
make it in is it going to be is that I
mean that was I think shocking I think
that was shocking to a lot of people
that you know they've been saying CNN's
in Decline CNN's in Decline but like
they really are in Decline apparently
over the past two three years um is that
the first time that information came out
to the public I think so yeah because
CNN is uh a subsidiary of Tom Warner uh
Warner Brothers Discovery rather it's
called now okay and so Warner Brothers
Discovery kind of reports all the
finances rolled up into one and this is
a huge issue in the pre-trial
proceedings it got me kind of confused
the CNN worldwide International versus
yeah so the defendant is CNN Inc the
defendant is CNN Inc but what CNN says
is but the revenues were for also for
worldwide is that what happened there so
CNN worldwide isn't a real entity okay
but it's the way they refer to their
business the CNN business and it
incorporate CNN Inc and other entities
and so they had to report they claimed
like CNN worldwide's revenues and CNN
worldwide stuff because that was the
only way they claimed they accounted for
it okay we were focused on CNN Inc
because it was the defendant right and
then you know there were huge fights
between us and CNN in the stages leading
up to trial about whether their
disclosures were accurate like CNN
claimed they had no cash flow statements
and we're like are you out of your mind
you're a two billion doll entity like
now it's public but we couldn't say it
at the time but it's like you're two
billion you get2 billion dollar of
Revenue you telling me you don't account
for where that cash goes like do your
Sher ERS know this like but they claimed
they're like no Warner Brothers manages
all our cash and you know there and so
there was huge fights back and forth and
we end up going to Delaware to move to
compel Warner Brothers to comply with
the subpoena and and Warner Brothers was
yelling screaming that we didn't give
enough time and this that and we said
hey if they don't have it swear that
they don't have it and one brother's
like well the judge in Florida didn't
make them do that and the judge in delor
was like well I'm making you do
that she's like produce it like reissue
The subpoena you have 20 days to respond
and if you don't have it like give sworn
declaration and so you know we had a lot
of litigation and parallel litigation
against CNN against Warner Brothers
Discovery and stuff like that I that's
where I was getting confused with the
expert because they they were asking
like there's worldwide and there's CNN
Inc and there I don't know what's going
here anymore who who has what assets it
got kind of confusing for me I don't
know but for the jury I'm sure for the
jury too and then it'd be my job at the
end to kind of make it make sense right
right yeah um I saw it and I don't know
if you could comment on this or not but
I think David alod said at one point
that we don't want the
cfo's testimony deposition to be played
because it's just going to be so
embarrassing for CNN did he say that
yeah you weren't in
court I don't know why yeah it's not a
it's not legit I'm sure he didn't win
right well yeah I mean the judge was
deciding in the whole 20 minutes and Joe
went out to edit it down to a shorter
amount of thing and they were just
saying going to be embarrassing is that
public record that deposition or because
it I think entire deposition is public
record but we did play portions of it in
Phase One very few portions but so the
parts that weren't played they're sealed
they can't get out confidential so
curious what what's embarrassing like it
almost sounded to me like they wanted to
settle because they didn't want like
that embarrassing I don't know oh I
don't know I don't I don't know what
he's referring to yeah but we played you
know one of the things they were
slamming Zach about was like his profit
margins or like 65% profit margins and
so we in Phase One played the cfo's
testimony that they projected profit
margins to 42.8% it's like what are you
talk like you're allowed to go get 42.8%
a multi-billion dollar entity but he's
not allowed to get 65% and so was you
know that that came out right okay so so
you're asking is the is the amount that
they settled for is that going to be
public as far as like SEC filings no
he's saying it's all wrapped up into
into Warner Brother so it's going to be
if it's if it if it's something that
needs a disclosure does that need to be
disclosed you have to ask SEC lawyers I
mean like it would have to it would have
to be my gut instinct is the amount of
the money that exchange hands would have
to be so material that it would affect
not
billion bus but Warner Brothers like 4
something billion business it's not
Material at all for that I mean I don't
want to comment on amounts but even if
it's hundreds of millions of dollars
still not going to yeah if you're worth
like 40 something billion even if you
paid you know like you PA a billion it
not it might not be a material change
yeah right so that negotiation goes back
and forth for a couple hours no I mean
it was quick because the we were moving
forward like like judge Henry was like
where's Vel cuz I had to cross their
expert
so you know their expert was about to
testify and then I had to cross and we
it eventually got to a point where we
were real close but not there yet and we
actually went to the judge and we we
asked for a sidebar and we said listen
we are real close to settling but we're
not done yet like can you just stop this
for 15 minutes uh and he agreed he
monetary monetary difference or some
dision whatever difference yeah just
like we were close but not there yet and
it I think both parties knew that we
were within Striking Distance it was
real chance this was going to happen not
that it was guaranteed to happen but
that it was real chance it was going to
happen and so we both went in we're like
we need some more time like you got to
stop because like it's just it's too
fast and like we can't get CNN is a
corporation they need multiple levels of
approval Zach had to think about things
you know make sure he was comfortable
with it so it's just there wasn't enough
time uh and so that he did he took his
foot off gas is is It ultimately up to
Zach at that point is it completely his
call whether to take or reject of course
he's just representing his client of
course I just wondering like how much
influence you have versus I mean I give
it advice but at the end of the day it's
his Zach's a really great guy and like
he did ask me at the end he's like are
you okay if I take this and I thought it
was really nice of him to ask cuz like
most most clients don't ask and I was
like absolutely like you know first of
all it's your case and second of all no
complaints here like you know I was like
you let me go to verdict I wanted to go
to verdict I wanted a verdict real bad
like this had never been done before
well I know about never but it hasn't
been done in like 50 60 years like and
and I really wanted the chance to get
the verdict so once he gave me the
verdict you know I was as long as there
was enough that he was happy and I was
happy I I was find a nice bottle of
kosher wine for shabas to celebrate with
afterwards you know what not only that
we didn't have any wine we had to make
Kish on bread oh my God on like stale
bread too cuz it was like it was we had
ordered food from Pomegranate okay and
it and it got stuck in the blizzard oh
yeah so it ended up coming but like some
of it I was a little like afraid to eat
yeah M and uh but the bread was okay but
you know we had opened some of it and it
was just like it was not a it was it was
a wonderful shopas cuz it was like there
was nothing to do was just me and my
wife and you're in a high and we were
yeah we were like super excited about
what we had done and accomplished and so
we got to walk around Panama City and we
took a million walks and did anybody
recognize you or a few people a few
people but not like not like everywhere
I went but a few people I was in trusum
Pizza which is like the pizza store here
the other day just buying pizza and some
guy walked in he's like oh you're famous
I don't know about that
but yeah so overall your strategy was
pretty much to not just go after the
facts of the case but also to make this
a broader like media story and it seems
like that was successful I don't know I
mean we weren't like we weren't focused
on making the media pick up as much of
it as far as just hold holding media
accountable as part of the Str get oh
yeah 100% And that's part of the P of
Damages right and that's there was like
these Waring cross uh closing arguments
where I went up there and I was like
this is your opportunity to send a
message like the media is lining and
there was a lot of news coverage like
report reporters unhappy with that I
guess they were like well you're trying
to politicize this and you're trying to
you know yeah but we wen't I mean there
was no partisan basis in the in the
story wasn't about Republican or
conservative or liberal or Democrats it
was it was just the news has gotten out
of hand right and you called for it it
should return to the Senate return to
the center exactly and so you know and
then axod got up CNN's lawyer got up and
said like this is not about sending
message right and then I got to get back
up and rebuttal and be like it's exactly
what this is about that's the purpose of
punitive damage is to send a message to
deter like send the message and it
seemed like that really resonated that
Str I think so I hope so I mean they
awarded it so it worked so so uh I guess
maybe last question but someone had
asked if you uh tried to put fill in on
Jake
tther I uh Jake T so I have had success
putting against fing a lot of people
you'd be surprised yeah but Jake
tapper's deposition was done remotely
via Zoom okay and so did not have an
opportunity to put it up Pharaoh can
still go out there and try to fight
absolutely you know what I think he'd be
open to it you know you didn't you only
saw portions of of Jake tapper's
deposition and um Tapper kind of got
given a a script of what to say uh he
did say in deposition he was intimately
involved in all of his shows but you
know I'm not sure Tapper actually like
meant to hurt this guy I put money that
he probably much reporting he does yeah
he's a pretty face I mean he says he's
not he says he
he say he's not a pretty face is that on
the
record he does actual reporting I asked
him in Depo like are you kind of like a
movie star and so like you just kind of
show up and get given your lines and
walk out he's like no I'm involved
intimately in all ASP but I'm sure there
are cases where he's more involved than
others right didn't do the reporting you
it was this was a segment that featured
on his show and you know I think he kind
of trusted his team to get that right so
what did he say about that does he
actually do reporting on segments that
are featured on the show I mean
obviously not as much as when they
feature him I'm sure he reviews it the
editori and I'm sure he he relies on
CNN's procedures to you know to get it
done and we didn't have any proof that
you know Tapper was aware it was not
true and Tapper did it on purpose like
we had nothing like that but there you
know there's a lot of that deposition
that didn't get aired and it's
confidential but I will tell you he
spoke passionately about going to um
Israel after October 7th I thought he
was great after October 7th I thought
Anderson Cooper and Jer were actually
really positive really covered it fairly
and so Yi far might have might have some
might have some success exced just don't
tell him he's that I I recommended it
because I think Persona Nara I think
over there right are you kidding sing is
hiring you for the next case that they
have to defend highly doubt it I
don't I don't all right you see
snowballing from here you do you see
more cases coming to you because of this
or I mean you had mentioned that you
already had some yeah we have a lot of
inbounds a lot of them are are you know
far out there or people that are kind of
you know a little On The Fringe yeah so
we're looking through them and and kind
of trying to pick and choose what what
it is we uh we want to deal with and
it's also important from our perspective
like the sort of cases we lend our name
to it's important to us we like to say
we take cases we believe in and so we've
we've turned down some cases based on
that even though we think they might be
meritorious it's like this is not the
case for us yeah so I mean God willing
rich hasem I hope so but at the end of
the day one thing I've seen you know
starting from working for a big law firm
and then starting my own law firm and
and taking these high-profile cases is
really at the end of the day you know
hasem controls your pessa and absolutely
um it you you might think you got the
greatest case in the world and it'll
turn into nothing or you you might have
a nothing case and it turned into
something huge and so I hope so but at
the end of the day it's all it's all
with him absolutely all right well thank
you so much for taking the time today
pleasure
rting fun conversation really fun
awesome