DoJ Memo Written In Crayon On Olive Garden Kids Menu Directs SDNY to Drop Eric Adams Case
Added 2025-02-12 11:24:55 +0000 UTCOA1124 and T3BE58 - Emil Bove drafted an insanely stupid and corrupt memo ordering SDNY to stop prosecuting the case against the insanely stupid and corrupt (and guilty) Mayor Eric Adams. This is absolutely a scandal and we have lost the ability to properly articulate how much of a scandal this is in light of all the other nonstop scandals. But, unlike mainstream media, AT LEAST WE'RE TRYING. We've brought in the big guns - Liz Skeen (and Matt joining on a Wednesday!)
Then, it's the usual Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, with Heather Varanini! Question 58.
If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Comments
I’m also waffling between B and C. If there’s any justice in the world, the answer should be B….which means it’s probably C. 🤪 Okay, I’ll pretend we don’t live in a Trumpster fire hellscape and go with B.
Kait from Seattle
2025-02-15 00:46:40 +0000 UTCIf there's anything right in the world, the answer is B. Nothing else makes sense. There was an existing contract, but a new agreement was put into place. It's not Painter Paul's fault that Creepy Carly gave the wrong date in the original contract. This feels like something that could've been handled on The People's Court in about 5 minutes with some harsh language for Creepy Carly by Judge Judy.
The Great State of Denial
2025-02-13 22:03:13 +0000 UTCGetting ready to do T3BE, but the letter to Pam Bondi today regarding Adams was described by Anna Bower as “wow.”
The Great State of Denial
2025-02-13 21:49:33 +0000 UTCB is the answer in classical contract law, as the price increase is supported by fresh consideration. However I suggest secret answer E: Carly should have simply 'updated our terms' on her website to change the time limit and declared that by reading it, you agree.
Tom Evans
2025-02-13 17:09:45 +0000 UTCB seems like the obvious answer. The bit about the change being immediate (and maybe the idea of "mistake") seems like it might be relevant if this was about Carly trying to immediately back out of the contract before any work had been done ("oh whoops actually I need 30 days", "that will be $2500 more", "sorry I can't do that, I'll need to go with someone else"), but that's not the scenario. Paul saying he'll take on a tighter timeline in exchange for more money seems like a straightforward contract modification. Paul made a new promise in exchange for the additional consideration, and Carly fulfilling the terms of the original contract isn't enough.
Sam
2025-02-13 12:34:56 +0000 UTCthe fun thing about sycophantic billionaires owning chunks of the US media landscape is how easy it is to hollow out journalism, which in makes it harder for truth and trust to flourish. related: this DoJ directive feels like it's been played for the media. chum in the water.
citationy stuff
2025-02-12 22:22:16 +0000 UTCI think B. The fundamental of contracts is that it’s a promise between two parties, right? If they make a new promise, that feels like it counts for something, so Paul should win. I don’t think pre-existing duty makes the most sense here on plain meaning of the words though, so that leaves B.
cephander
2025-02-12 22:21:12 +0000 UTCIstanbul is the best. Such incredible sites, food, and people. Matt: Did 5-4 ever get back to you about being featured on one of their episodes?
Austin Flake
2025-02-12 21:31:29 +0000 UTCTotally unforgivable, a quid pro quo for a quid pro quo criminal case, clearly Emil Bove has committed a crime or crimes and warrants immediate disbarment, criminal charges, and firing from his job. Will it happen? Probably not. Will the AUSA refuse to drop the case? Probably not. Total corruption and attorney misconduct, this is wrong and must be stopped.
Ryan
2025-02-12 20:21:31 +0000 UTCI agree with gmork. They’re intending to say the last administration released the merchant of death in exchange for a women’s basketball player, so we’re justified in not pursuing a mayor we like in exchange for a thing we want (i.e. someone who will help us punish a blue state with ice raid cooperation). Yeah it’s a bad comparison/equivalence, but it’s obviously what they were going for.
Travis Alexander
2025-02-12 20:04:29 +0000 UTC😍😍😍😍 I'm a perennial favorite?!?!? Daaawwww!!! It made my day to hear yinz laughing at my answer 🤣🤣🤣🤣
All-inclusive Gender Resort
2025-02-12 19:32:58 +0000 UTCWe've got a properly modified contract!!! Under the common law (which applies to service contracts, like this one), if you want to change your contract, you have options: 1. Sign a contract modification that imposes new obligations on both parties, not just one or 2. Tear up the original contract, burn it on a properly-consecrated altar to Gruumsh, the one-eyed god of the Orcs, then enter a shiny brand new contract that demands more of at least one side. Without one of these, so the common law logic goes, you don't have consideration for the new agreement, since one side isn't giving up anything they weren't already obligated to do. Here, the parties went for option 1. Paul agreed to paint the trucks faster than he was required to under the original contract, and Carly agreed to pay him more money in exchange for extra-speedy painting. Because there was an increased obligation on both sides, Carly's going to have to pay up! Answer is B.
nocountry4oldben
2025-02-12 17:30:45 +0000 UTCT3BE SPOILER ALERT This is classic detrimental reliance or “quasi contract” and the answer is B. An oral agreement is enforceable where one party relied to their detriment on the other party’s promise. Here the painter, apparently to his detriment based on clues in the question, relied on Carly’s promise of extra pay to accelerate his end of the bargain. E.g., he rearranged his schedule or made other sacrifices to complete the job in the shorter period BECAUSE she agreed to pay extra. Therefore she has to pay the extra she promised and a court would so hold. Note that painter Paul did not pressure Carly-she called right away, meaning she had time and could have looked for and bargained with an alternative painter, and the painter therefore had no time-pressure leverage, as one of the wrong answers suggested.
Lawrence Frank
2025-02-12 17:20:45 +0000 UTCAt the time of modification, Carly's preexisting duty was to pay $5000 and Paul's preexisting duty was to paint the trucks *within 45 days*. The modification imposed a *new* duty on Paul to paint the trucks *within 30 days*, so Paul cannot be said to have wrongfully extracted the additional $2,500 as compensation for a preexisting duty. This modification has an offer, acceptance, and consideration, so it is binding absent allegations of duress not present here. The answer is B.
Dr. Clerk
2025-02-12 17:04:36 +0000 UTCThat's a very good steel manning of it.
Gmork
2025-02-12 15:58:59 +0000 UTCThat could be triggering for Thomas. That last good briefs he reviewed were probably the ones his lawyers filed against AT.
Gmork
2025-02-12 15:33:28 +0000 UTCAny chance the state of new York could pick up this case in some form?
Despairing Radical
2025-02-12 15:30:00 +0000 UTCThis is so unbelievable… Thanks Liz for the breakdown… as much as possible, that is.
Status Quo Level Thing
2025-02-12 15:28:01 +0000 UTCJustice delayed is justice denied.
Lawrence Frank
2025-02-12 15:25:01 +0000 UTCT3BE answer I believe is B. Modification of a contract is possible if there is additional consideration. Here the consideration is the agreement to perform in a faster timeframe in exchange for an additional fee. Carly owes the additional $2500. C could be correct if Paul could only complete the project in 45 days, but since he performed according to the modified contract he went beyond his original duty to perform so it can’t be C.
Charley Kelly, Bird Law Specialist
2025-02-12 15:24:21 +0000 UTCAnd once again everything Trump touches turns to s***. Wasn’t Bove once a respected lawyer who himself actually worked in SDNY?
Lawrence Frank
2025-02-12 15:23:13 +0000 UTCNo one currently on SDNY should follow Bove’s order.
Lawrence Frank
2025-02-12 15:22:11 +0000 UTCI think Sassoon should fall on her sword and decline to follow Bove’s directive because it amounts to telling her to violate her ethical obligations as a lawyer. Period. Let the cards fall where they may. Or the whole U.S. attorney’s office should resign in response to this order. Soldiers don’t have to obey illegal orders. Lawyers don’t have to obey unethical orders.
Lawrence Frank
2025-02-12 15:21:22 +0000 UTCI hope one day Liz, Matt and Thomas get to review a well written good argument. It just won’t be anytime soon.
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2025-02-12 15:14:54 +0000 UTCI heard that as saying SDNY objected (in the meeting) to letting such an obvious felon go free and Bove was saying that they aren't the first administration to let a felon walk to further political purposes.
Drew Vogel
2025-02-12 14:55:05 +0000 UTCI love the coverage of these details but I think you're overthinking the quid pro quo. They don't need a specific quid pro quo to make this an obvious buy from the Trump position. This case gives them the opportunity to corrupt SDNY (little by little) and also corrupt the city of NY. That plays into their media strategy later this year as immigration actions ramp up after Congress increases ICE and CBP funding. It also plays into their longer term need to have corruption within their own ranks to point to for periodic corruption purges. That is one technique that all fascists use to quell popular concerns about their power. Don't think Emil Bove is a long term part of this play. When SDNY says "but Bove told us to" they will also purge Bove and put him into a different private role.
Drew Vogel
2025-02-12 14:52:32 +0000 UTCThank you for the correction. That said, I think that's the comparison they're reaching for, even if it's based on incorrect facts. I can't think of any other way it would be relevant in their minds.
Gmork
2025-02-12 14:04:29 +0000 UTCVery good point
Liz Skeen
2025-02-12 14:00:12 +0000 UTCAlas no, I don’t think they deserve even that credit. Viktor Bout was sentenced in 2012 to 25 years — i.e. SDNY was long done with the prosecution when the prisoner exchange happened in 2022.
Liz Skeen
2025-02-12 13:59:26 +0000 UTCKeeping a leash on Adams is 100% why they explicitly say the law and evidence aren't lacking. They want to be explicitly clear they can bring this back for any reason.
Gmork
2025-02-12 13:55:51 +0000 UTCRe Bout, I'm assuming the context is that main justice probably directed SDNY to drop his prosecution (in order to make a prisoner exchange) so it's totes normal for main justice to direct SDNY to drop this. But very poorly written.
Gmork
2025-02-12 13:46:02 +0000 UTCJust started listening and I was like OMG it’s LIZ!!!! So excited!
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2025-02-12 13:28:02 +0000 UTCI'm enjoying the dynamic that whenever truly terrible legal writing comes up, Liz bursts in like the Kool Aid man.
Gmork
2025-02-12 13:23:24 +0000 UTC
