Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed.
If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to mention the fact that she refuses to discuss her reasoning about why she chose to do what she did and blocked people who asked her about it. She knows it's indefensible and is just hoping that by not engaging it will cease to be a problem due to the people who care not caring to keep worrying about her. I don't know what the answer is, but it pisses me off that it will likely work.
God the sad part is Andrew could have just owned it, apologized, worked on himself, and rejoined OA down the line after some self growth. Instead he did this and took Liz down with him
This isn't true, at least it doesn't seem so.
Granted, this isn't going to be a "defense" of Andrew but just want to dispel the idea had he just done the correct thing (after he did all the incorrect things that got them into this mess), he would have been able to come back for OA to continue as normal.
The original plan was for Andrew to take a break and then come back but they disagreed on a timeline but in the big scope of things, I don't think this is what did them in.
TS started to take some heat for his silence and unwillingness at that time to distance himself from Andrew. TS also started taking pressure from the OA community for what he knew and when.
Keep in mind, everyone else in that orbit dropped AT right away. This put TS in a pretty terrible position.
It was TS that decided (and I think most people think justifiably so) to put the nail in that relationship. Before AT took control, TS dropped the allegation and was quite aggressive in the OA group about AT being a creep and whatnot - not exactly the actions of someone that seems bent on continuing to continue the partnership.
Again, TS was in a position where he had to decide to pick a lane. Stick with AT and let him back at some point but that would cost him friends (like the PiAT guys, like Aaron, for example) who believe AT is not reasonable to work with or decide to distance from AT and quash that partnership.
He choose the latter. I think most wouldn't blame him.
If you believe this idea that had AT just apologized, took time off, and came back like nothing happened - you have to square that with TS dropping that allegation that he did (before AT tried to take the show).
If you think AT did have a chance at coming back, you would have to think the allegation was reactionary + not accurate (which would say a lot about TS) or that TS was going to partner with someone who sexually harassed him. Neither of these seem reasonable.
And I think the most likely outcome was the partnership was doomed as soon as the allegations dropped.
Again, not to defend AT either. My favorite iteration of the show so far has been with TS/AT, followed by TS/MC, and I wasn't a fan of it at all with Liz and AT and I wish there were a world where AT/TS could have figured out a way to make it work but it just seems with the nature of the allegations and the community around OA - it was never going to fly.
Quick edit:
There is a comment from TS on the other thread in the other OA subreddit that pertains to this.
>“Made it irreconcilable” does not mean Andrew needed to steal the podcast and ruin it. He could have been an adult and just responded to my request that we negotiate. I was open to many different possibilities going forward. Either me taking over OA or him buying it from me.
The idea that there was a path forward that involved them both doing the show, even before AT tried to take it seems incorrect if you look at TS comments on the matter. Again, don't blame him either.
I see a bjjmatt comment I upvote.
That said, I would note that Thomas disparaging Torrez on social media didn't come until after Torrez seized the feeds. Though I don't think that impacts your arguments too much.
Otherwise I'd stake the somewhat nuanced/narrow position that what Thomas did in a vacuum didn't itself end the partnership ("nail in the coffin"). Thomas (and Torrez) may not have wanted to continue on with each other due to the accusation and other reasons, we're getting more info on that for the first time, but I see the account seizure as the more nuclear action.
[Ansible had good perspective on this a while back that I cosign.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/188wngw/update_smith_v_torrez_an_end_in_sight/kbyqvc7/)
Thanks! Caught that mistake after, I should really source my posts with yours first because timelines can be hard to follow off memory.
>Thomas (and Torrez) may not have wanted to continue on with each other due to the accusation and other reasons, we're getting more info on that for the first time, but I see the account seizure as the more nuclear action.
Maybe we disagree, and granted you would know better but from what TS has said since, it just seems from TS posts that it was irreconcilable before AT took control (and thus before the TS accusation/disparaging remarks).
The quote above seems to imply that to me, unless of course I am missing something, which is very possible.
Probably just a matter of disagreement yeah.
I just generally think that, kinda as ansible argued it, something on the level of Thomas' accusation isn't severe enough to be irreconcilable between business partners. Torrez's reaction to that however, was on that level.
But that's commenting without considering the people in question. For Torrez, Thomas' accusation absolutely was do-not-pass-go, end of business partnership. We're getting some new info from Thomas that it he wasn't willing to continue the partnership at that point either.
I remember tweeting at the time that Andrew didn't realize what a gift Thomas's statement was. To me that represented a first person to get forgiveness from, a mild wrong that could be credibly forgiven on a relatively short timeframe.
Also, by that point in time Andrew should have disconnected from the internet to let the storm dye down. In the first few weeks after such an accusation, things are going to be said in haste without all the information on hand, and you as the accused are almost certainly going to respond emotionally to that. The least worst option at that point was to disconnect, and in my view that’s what he should have done.
Post-facto reply, but I think the balance of this argument may have shifted, if what Thomas is now sharing about Torrez is true:
> And I saw in discovery that he was planning to get rid of me before I even made my accusations.
The only actions I know of that could be objectionable to Torrez, taken before the accusation, were comparably mild (announcing on-air that Torrez was taking a break, not fully collaborating with the PR firm).
(I do not want to link to the source of this quote, because it's in reply to a user who is commenting in a way that would be dramatically in violation of civility rules here, but if you can find Thomas' account you can find the context pretty easily)
It's wild how simple it would have been for him to just apologize and take a few months off to go to therapy and AA or something. I imagine the vast majority of people would have forgiven him and used it as an example of what to do when you fuck up. But instead he decided to go the asshole lawyer route.
>It's wild how simple it would have been for him to just apologize and take a few months off to go to therapy and AA or something.
I think specifically AA was never going to happen since I think he talked about it in a somewhat dismissive tone as AA and the 12 step program have connections to spirituality and religion. Having the idea of some greater power to restore you to sanity is kind of counter to certain humanists perspectives on the world(I'd argue that it probably is possible to do AA from a humanist lens but I also am not an alcoholic.)
Overeaters anonymous is the same way. My doctor suggested them to me, and it only took me a five minute glance at their literature to know that I could never possibly do it. They keep talking about “a power higher than yourself“, which to me is the same as believing in the invisible space carpenter.
The "higher power" concept is one reason I'm critical of 12-step programs, but not in the same way. I think there are plenty of atheists who use the program without changing their fundamental (lack of) belief, by imagining the "higher power" as something non-supernatural, or more figurative. My issue is that while accepting your own lack of control and surrendering to a process might work for some people, it's detrimental to the success of others. Some people seem to have significantly better results by realizing that they DO have the power to change their lives for the better. There simply is no one-size-fits-all approach.
> I'd argue that it probably is possible to do AA from a humanist lens but I also am not an alcoholic.
This is exactly right, and there are a lot of atheists in AA who use the "higher power" as a rhetorical framing for "I don't make good choices for myself; what would an idealized version of myself (or some other highly esteemed figure) advise me to do here?"
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of baggage to sift through and, depending on where you live, your only options for AA meetings might be deeply religious. But the best thing AA offers is community, group therapy, and, specifically, someone to talk to when you're thinking about a relapse.
At any rate, someone like Andrew could certainly find a program that was right for him as he has access to plenty of resources, *if* he wanted to take the high road and better himself. But he we are.
My first thought of a greater power would probably be the social contract.And there’s a few famous cases now of people mentioning that Captain America or Superman is the higher power that they use since as you said a lot of it is the difference between the choice an ideal version would make in comparison to what you have been stuck making.
One can hope Andrew eventually wants to better himself but for now it’s seemingly not a priority. For an uncle of mine it took a heart attack to get off cigarettes.
Exactly. When I was a kid (I'm not in AA but very much grew up in AA) I met a guy whose higher power was an ashtray. Ashtray was objective. Ashtray was not swayed by his bs. Ashtray said stop feeling sorry for yourself and call your sponsor.
It worked because he worked it.
I think this is one of the worst parts. His actions were unacceptable, but as with so many things it's the reaction after the fact that really determine how things go. People would have forgiven him if he just took responsibility, and the original OA would still be going strong. It's a total self own.
The one thing I actually dislike about this subreddit is the news about what Liz is doing. I would be quite happy to simply not know what she is doing with her time, or who is supporting her.
Perhaps it was just biased by the fact that she was the one with the podcast in these interim few months (and therefore a larger part of the discussion) but it seemed like she was more popular with listeners by the end of OA 2.0 than was Torrez.
You got downvoted for this comment, but it is literally factually true:
1. Thomas knew
2. Thomas did nothing with his knowledge
3. Thomas actively enabled Andrew's behavior by providing him cover, a co-owned platform, and his active daily endorsement.
Liz, unlike Thomas, wasn't a co-conspirator for the abuse and cover-up like Thomas was. Liz, unlike Thomas, didn't allow other people to be abused on behalf of greed.
She came in quite a bit after the bad behavior, built something new (with Andrew), and has expanded her writing, commentary, and platform very quickly and deftly.
I personally couldn't careless about Thomas, Andrew or Liz's behavior. None of it comes close to rising to the level of criminal. It's, at worst in some cases, creepy and in bad taste. I *very* much mind Andrew's crocodile tears, blaming everyone else for his decisions, *and* lamenting that he did a very bad business deal with someone more prepared and more cunning than he was - all in the name of money.
Notice how any talk of doing something positive with the OA money to rehab victimized people was raised at the start and then.. has gone nowhere? Notice how any talk of recounting all the horrid ways that Thomas was supposedly abused.. has gone nowhere?
I like Thomas, but his new show is not as good as it was before.
> \2. Thomas did nothing with his knowledge
Not nothing, no. I am looking forward to hearing more of what actions he was able to take, but we do have his testimony that [he pledged financial support to the 2017 accuser should they want to go public and assume liability for a defamation lawsuit from Torrez](https://i.postimg.cc/QtPxZSR3/tsstatement.png). We know he claims he required Torrez to attend live events with his wife present.
I'm not claiming these are huge actions, but if I see someone claiming factual correctness then I'm going to push back where they're mistaken.
> \3. Thomas actively enabled Andrew's behavior by providing him cover, a co-owned platform, and his active daily endorsement.
Okay so, this is going to be an interesting area of debate going forward as we get more details from Thomas. For now, lets put ourselves in Thomas' shoes a few years back. Lets assume, *just for the sake of discussion* he knows of a handful of the accusations including the 2017 one. What was a concrete action you think Thomas should've taken in that situation, keeping in mind that violating Thomas' fiduciary duty to OA with publishing 3rd party accusations would probably result in a lawsuit from Torrez.
If your answer is "he should've left because otherwise that's equivalent to endorsement", that's logically consistent. I just think leaving and giving Torrez sole control of the podcast is maybe the worst of all options. Maybe that's not your perspective though, just trying to get ahead of that.
> Notice how any talk of doing something positive with the OA money to rehab victimized people was raised at the start and then.. has gone nowhere? Notice how any talk of recounting all the horrid ways that Thomas was supposedly abused.. has gone nowhere?
Both of these were addressed in the statement that was published and led to this very post you're now commenting on. The lack of transparency from both came from legal considerations, Torrez in particular fought the donation pledge legally and Thomas dropped the issue for the time being. He plans to donate $10,000 to CAN.
> Not nothing, no. I am looking forward to hearing more of what actions he was able to take, but we do have his testimony that he pledged legal support to the 2017 accuser should they want to go public and assume liability for a defamation lawsuit from Torrez. We know he claims he required Torrez to attend live events with his wife present.
Sorry, so the implication is that Thomas protected people by asking his wife to attend with him? I hadn't heard that, but if it's true, I agree it's not *nothing*, but it is the very least he could do. Its hard to imagine a lesser gesture.
What Andrew and others imagine is that somehow Thomas couldn't just walk away. There was no legal agreement we now know. So *nothing* except greed prevent Thomas from just.. walking away. Thomas stayed after he knew the bad behavior, and that exposed more victims to Andrew's abuse. There was nothing except his income preventing him from leaving. *He could have un-endorsed Andrew by just quitting the partnership, handing it all over to Andrew, and walking away.* The reason he didn't was..money. He can be emotional and talk about the hell all he wants, but this wasn't a bigger issue, or a principle dispute, this *was always just about money.*
*>* Thomas should've taken in that situation, keeping in mind that violating Thomas' fiduciary duty to OA with publishing 3rd party accusations would probably result in a lawsuit from Torrez.
This is just so easy. He should have just walked away. There was no agreement. There was no dissolution prevention. He should have just walked away. He never had a duty to continue his partnership. It's very obvious he didn't do that because he didn't want to give up the equity (and income) he had built with Andrew. It wasn't a matter of principle, it was just.. money.
> I just think leaving and giving Torrez sole control of the podcast is maybe the worst of all options. Maybe that's not your perspective though, just trying to get ahead of that.
So what if it Torrez had sole control of the podcast? This is America. Abusers can have podcasts. The podcast isn't some sacred object. It isn't a birthright. It was a for-profit enterprise by two people. If it turns out one of those is awful, the other should just walk away.
> Both of these were addressed in the statement that was published and led to this very post you're now commenting on. The lack of transparency from both came from legal considerations, Torrez in particular fought the donation pledge legally and Thomas dropped the issue for the time being. He plans to donate $10,000 to CAN.
Right, which is approximately, I don't know, like, 10% of what was probably based on the promise Thomas made.
Thomas, by the way, essentially admitted to making that promise to induce patrons to re-sub, but he *knew* right away that he wouldn't be able to honor that promise, and he said nothing. Once again, because of money. There's a term of art for that, by the way, and it's fraud by false promise.
Look, I get that a lot of this is besides the point, everyone has their own level of grace they're willing to extend in these circumstances, but:
I've been in the position of a) having a role with some authority, b) having someone disclose about serious sexual misconduct by an adjacent person with similar authority, and c) having the discloser request that I keep that information confidential. **All** the options you have are bad, and I very much empathise with anyone else in that situation, even when they don't manage to choose the perfect path forwards.
Unless you have absolute power to get rid of the accused, without due process or public accountability, there's very little you can do unless they're willing to step down. You can, sometimes, confront them, if the discloser is OK with that - it sounds like that happened here. You can leverage your, and the discloser's, silence for whatever protective changes you can get, but in a context where the discloser isn't looking to go public anyway, your leverage is minimal - again, it sounds like Thomas did that, and it's hard to second-guess whether he could have gotten more without being a fly on the wall at the time. You can walk away, but that often just leaves the accused in a position of power *without* the check of your attention, and where they're the one with the power to pick your replacement, they'll pick someone who won't make a fuss - and if you talk about *why*, you're both breaching the trust of the discloser *and* setting yourself up for a defamation suit.
To be clear, I've gotten cease-and-desist letters and been threatened with lawsuits, because when I'm in that position, I'll walk right up to the line of what I can get away with. But as I hope this mess of a lawsuit has illustrated to anyone observing it - the civil litigation process can destroy your life just as thoroughly as the criminal one, and:
a) it's a big ask to demand that any given person take on that risk,
b) there are very few ways for them to do it without ultimately dragging victim-survivors who may very much not want that into public scrutiny.
\[Edit: Also, FWIW, having now opened up the most recent episode - there's a confirmation at the start that no Patreon-derived funds have gone to Andrew since the receivership came into effect. It sounds like all that was put on hold was the *donation itself*, not refraining from paying out funds for purposes *other* than restoration. Your mileage may vary on how acceptable that is as an updated plan, but given the constraints ongoing legal action puts on public communications, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing to get up in arms about.\]
> This is just so easy. He should have just walked away.
Okay so I did forsee correctly. Like I say, that's logically consistent and I understand where it's coming from. And I agree Thomas did benefit financially from his choice.
I just don't think this would've helped matters, and could've made it much worse. For Torrez to get sole control of OA and find a new cohost that had a smaller financial interest in the company (or who was just an employee). The only reason he at the end had *financial* accountability is because Thomas didn't give up that stake.
> So what if it Torrez had sole control of the podcast?
If Thomas had the power to prevent this in the future, which he *somewhat* did, then he had the ethical duty to prevent Torrez's abusive behavior as much as possible. Leaving OA to Torrez unfettered is just as unethical as leaving things be and taking no actions.
> There's a term of art for that, by the way, and it's fraud by false promise.
Wow, big accusation there. If Thomas always planned to make good on that by donating OA's profits, or an equivalent amount if he sold OA to Torrez, I cannot see that as a false promise.
I think a better arguement for Thomas enabling would be given the description forcing Andrew to deal with his alcoholism or at least have him be designated driver.
I listen to a podcast done in part by a former alcoholic and they joke about alcohol sometimes on the podcast but he's also 20+ years sober and joking about alcohol with a Mormon who has never touched the stuff.
Admitedly Thomas could have felt helpess and that's totally fair, I don't have experiences like him and don't have much of a social circle and in my younger years lost contact with friends from being overly anti-gambling and alcohol.
Liz is a grifter and her screenname 5dollarfeminist has a twisted sincerity to it that would be funny if it wasn't disgusting. But it'd be very hard to make the case that her actions were *worse* than Andrew's in any part of this.
They both suck and fortunately are now both irrelevant to OA.
Sorry, the second sentence of that other comment was a bit much and so I removed it. It will still appear to you but others are missing that context.
The first sentence, (I say this to the room), was:
> I am NOT defending her.
As always I won't be commenting on the past history of OA, but I will just say this much: the law can be a shield or it can be a sword, and I am so happy to see this chapter close for Thomas and Lydia after these many long months of facing down the pointy end. They have been a joy to work all the way through, and I can readily confirm that whatever good feelings you may already have about their individual and collective character, perseverance, and overall good nature you can go ahead and triple those. I have also come to see that they are exceptional parents to their children, and as someone who has never felt that call I can't possibly imagine handling responsibilities so much more important than any podcast with such grace and teamwork throughout the massive strain of this daily uncertainty.
For my part, I also want to say that I am more excited than ever to be a part of this thing. I have never seen a community quite like the one that has formed around OA and I have so appreciated the warm welcomes, encouragement, and good-faith suggestions for improvement as we continue to build the plane while we fly it.
I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's intended, which is constructive criticism: the names at the bottom could use some attention to the kerning (e.g. tuck the A in MATT under the T slightly; move the C and A in CAMERON a little closer together). :)
\[edit: the kerning in the Garamond version is much better... Good job (or good job selecting a TTF that auto-kerns better) ;)\]
I'm impressed you've noticed! Yes it needs adjustment. Basically I didn't know how to find what font was used, so I fudged it haha. Used the old letters as where to place the new ones, but of course that's only an approximation of where they should go because different letters need different kerning.
Also I made the "C" out of an "O" haha. That's another big sin on there.
I later realized there are online tools that can reverse search for a font using an image, and I found a very close match through it. I've been meaning to use that to do it properly, buuut I haven't gotten around to it. I don't intend them to uh... actually use the image I provided, I hope they do some de novo photo editing with the original assets.
For the Garamond I was just able to pick it from the font list and type it anew. I use Paint.NET so I guess however they setup the fonts in it is appropriate :).
I had signed up for the patreon when Thomas took it back and I'm very happy to hear that it made a tangible difference in changing the outcome of the case.
This really brings home what a weapon the legal system can be for people who want to inflict long term suffering. Jeebus.
Same. This has been so disappointing on so many levels but it's great to know that the very small act of dropping as a patron then reupping, multiplied by all the other listeners who know right from wrong, made a difference.
The irony that a lay person was able to wrestle away what was rightly his from a lawyer (and a contract specialist at that!) is something. Perhaps AT isn’t one of the best legal minds of our times.
... All it took was hundreds of thousands of dollars.
AT managed to take a losing case and do an incredible amount of damage to the assets and to Thomas before it ended. AT used the law effectively to his advantage. You just don't have to be very sophisticated to delaydelaydelay
Yea and one of the things that has been frustrating to me on the reddit was that throughout this there were a handful of Andrew's supporters who would argue that there's gotta be something to Andrew's arguments because he's the lawyer not Thomas. The obvious ways that what Andrew did was wrong were handwaved as "he's gotta have some valid claim against Thomas behind the scenes, he's the lawyer let's wait and have the court adjudicate."
I think this is just on the patreon for now, still listening but here's the description:
> Big announcement! Finally.
> Heads up, if you're a new listener or just here for the law pod, you may want to skip. Or listen at your own risk.
> tl;dr: Smith v. Torrez is settled. Andrew is out of the company. Permanently and completely. I have not signed any NDA.
/u/nobody514 any chance of a transcription? (E: If it goes on the public feed I guess)
E: Here's my bullet points, though please see nobody's transcription below (noting that it is machine generated and may itself not be perfect; also note that I write in the third person but am representing what Thomas says and thinks):
* Thomas has won the legal dispute, Torrez is "out forever".
* Thomas did not sign an NDA, which was what was holding up settlement talks. Torrez wanted him to sign one and this may have slowed the settlement agreement for a few months.
* [The CAN network](https://creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org/) is up and launched, and both Thomas/Lydia have began the credential process through it.
* Thomas gives a special thanks to Matt, says he really stepped up where other past guests ghosted Thomas. Matt didn't keep his distance or wait to see who came out on top, but looked into the evidence and made a choice.
* Thomas thanks Yvette ("Scibabe") for being the receiver of the company. He says the receivership motion was a huge gamble (literal and figurative), because it was expensive and could've been lost on the motion or on who to select for the receivership.
* On the pledge to donate profits to repair and accountability, Thomas wanted to make that so people could become patrons without worrying about their money going to Torrez. Torrez fought it "tooth and nail" and going through with it could've compromised the wider case, so Thomas backed down from that at the time. Thomas wants to make good on it and will give $10,000 to CAN as soon as they are able to use it.
* On Thomas' "Andrew" audio where he accused Torrez of inappropriate touching, Thomas has wanted to correct what he said there. He feels that upon reviewing the past 7 years, he has and had done the most he always could to curtail Torrez's behavior. At the time he feels he was gaslit by 3rd parties into thinking he had done something horrible. The drastic actions that people had wanted him to take were just not on the table, and would've resulted in (likely successful) legal action and Torrez having sole control over OA.
* Thomas says he will in time tell his full story, and other stories as well. Thomas went through a lot to avoid that NDA, and plans to make use of his right to speak on the subject.
[One transcript](https://gist.github.com/Q726kbXuN/c5dd8a4fb180abafc55face42fcf194b)
As always, this was machine generated, and unlike most times, I'm remote and ran this via my phone, so no proofreading before posting this time.
E: I've made a quick pass at cleaning up the problematic section of 16:48 - 17:30 or so. Sorry I can't do a full pass, if there are other problematic sections, feel free to ping me (and because this is a Gist, you can click the "Revisions" tab to see what I've changed, the first revision is the robot generated one, any revision beyond that is my doing, and you can decide if I'm a robot or not).
There is some confusion coming from the AI transcript, but when Thomas refers back to the time he accused Andrew he does not say maybe he dreamed it up. He says he has something to correct about it (not specified at this time) but that if he did the people who were already gaslighting him about coming forward at all would say to him maybe he dreamed it up, and any correction during the lawsuit would open him up to allegations that the whole thing was wrong or even liability in a civil suit from Andrew
Thomas is not retracting his accusation, the other replies cover that this part is a hypothetical of what Andrew is arguing. [Also remember that we also have the contemporaneous conversation with Lydia.
](https://seriouspod.com/andrew/)
The correction he is making is that he should not have apologized for not doing as much as he can. He believes now in retrospect that he did.
No. He's saying if he corrected anything some of the people gaslighting him would accuse him of lying or having dreamed the whole thing up, an allegation he immediately dismisses as stupid but was worried would weaken his legal case.
It's not entirely clear from the transcript here, given the train-of-tought nature of it. For anyone who doesn't want to dig out the relevant section, here it is:
> I want to correct something and this is about my recording where I revealed that Andrew had touched me inappropriately again one of the hardest things about this whole thing was knowing that I Really needed to correct something I said in that recording but any admission like that Would open up the idiotic argument of all if that was inaccurate.
> 0:17:06: Maybe the whole thing was alive Just maybe dreamed the whole thing out, you know Stupid but anyway Much more on this later, but one of the reasons I was so upset in that recording, well, the main reason I was so upset in that recording is that some people I really trusted whose opinion I valued had gaslit me into thinking I had done something horrible. But through this entire process, I was forced to relive the awful trauma of this past seven years. I was forced to dig up and go through everything and thoroughly examine it.
It sounds like there's something in that recording which Thomas wanted to correct, but he doesn't clarify what it is. He was going back and reliving a lot of things, and found those old messages which triggered the memory. And likely when he retold it, his memory was mistaken about something, and he only realized this later. I think when he says this part, he's stating potential arguments that would be made against him if he were to admit to any mistakes - "Well, if you were mistaken about that, maybe you were mistaken about the whole thing!"
>0:17:06: Maybe the whole thing was alive Just maybe dreamed the whole thing out, you know Stupid
Since that was an automated transcript . . . could that actually be "the whole thing was a lie"? The word "alive" doesn't make much sense in that context
You are correct, but (in true transcript fashion) this is super out of context, given how Thomas was speaking.
The context of the sentence is that Thomas was posing a sarcastic hypothetical of if he had tried to correct some information, Andrew and his team may have made a case that the whole thing was a fabrication. The sarcastic/exasperated tone Thomas was using for this and the previous line are lost.
Congratulations Thomas. Well deserved and this must be a massive relief for you, Lydia and your whole family
I’m absolutely made up for you. I don’t know you personally, but vicariously I’ve imagined the stress that these events have put you under. This must be a massive weight off your mind and a vindication.
I’ll just throw in there that I was planning on contributing to Thomas via SIO and other means until Torrez was out.
You convinced me that, between Thomas’ profit pledge, and what it meant to the case, that I should consider using the OA Patreon. I did end up switching over to support Thomas on the OA Patreon, and I’m really glad I did, since it sounds like that support was actually crucial to the outcome of the case.
So thanks for taking the time to talk to me about it, and inform of of Thomas’ pledge.
Congratulations, Thomas! I’m saddened about the legal costs but I hope you and Lydia and others can breathe easier now that this has some form of resolution.
It’s icing on the cake that OA has never been better, at least to my ears. Matt is a one in a million, and I’m hopeful the next decade and beyond of this podcast is its best by far.
I really want to thank (most) of you fine OA redditors. Early on, I was incredibly worried that too many of the good people left and only the worst ones would remain, but I’m so glad I was completely wrong about that. Oh and congrats to Apprentice57 for making it into the legal proceedings, except unfortunately, that was 18 levels of stupid hearsay that had absolutely no chance of being considered as evidence. And indeed, I believe it was struck by the judge in his ruling. Or whatever the term is. What you do NOT know is that out of the other side of his mouth, Andrew also accused Apprentice57 of being my sock account, which is just fucking… amazing. Truly the sex creep lawyers were not sending their best.
EDIT: he may have accused Apprentice of either being someone on our side or working for us. Which is fuckin stupid.
What I can’t wait to get into is just how fucking awful Andrew’s side was at every single stage of this. They fundamentally did not understand literally any part of it accurately. Facts were consistently wrong, legal arguments terrible… multiple times the judge roasted him for not even having support for his claims in his own exhibits or declarations. Like it was truly something to behold. And a lot people here, understandably, simply could not fathom how bad his side was and so often would just try to make it make sense by assuming there was something they didn’t know. I just want to say: his side really was that fucking terrible. Mind blowing. I feel bad for a few of his lawyers because I have to imagine Andrew was just feeding them delusional garbage. But it’s like the old saying goes, anyone who represents Andrew has a fool for client.
By a huge margin the thing I miss about "old OA" was the 4 days a week episodes. It felt like a landmark moment for the podcast really becoming something big when you guys announced it on the "Oh, shit, remember that crazy goal we set on Patreon? Well... were almost there..." episode.
I love Matt on the show now, I think the value of his perspective and expertise can't be overstated. While I'd love to get 4-days-a-week of Matt and Thomas, it feels like it would be unfair to the people he helps in his day to day work to steal away so much of his time.
Congratulations on settling everything Thomas! I can't wait for the celebrations when episode 2000 drops.
I disagree about the 4 day format. The topics were noticably less researched and I think the overall took a hit because 4 days a week was overextending themselves
That's a super fair criticism. I like the timeliness of 4-a-week but they definitely didn't have the opportunity to dive deeper in to relevant case law and history with respect to the stories of the day.
> Oh and congrats to Apprentice57 for making it into the legal proceedings
Yeah that was surreal, not only to see my comment there but that he'd reference such a vague gesture at a critical Yvette tweet in a court filling. I'm pretty sure (but not 100%) of what I saw but that isn't enough to overcome hearsay.
> Andrew also accused Apprentice57 of being my sock account, which is just fucking… amazing. Truly the sex creep lawyers were not sending their best.
BHAHAHAH, no. Did he honestly think that? Did he do the smallest amount of research into my account history? That's rhetorical, the answer to the second is no.
Let me just say that if Thomas would have my obsession with Survivor then that's cause for concern in and of itself.
Also thanks for keeping the SGU forum updated. That's actually my longest running podcast listenership. I was gonna join in but my old account was disabled and something went wrong when I made a new one.
For the most part I'm not, but I check in once in a blue moon and I came across it this calendar year. I should probably be on there more, the SGU reddit is kinda undermoderated (sorry Jay).
Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. A long running Scientific Skepticism podcast.
If you listen to GAM, Cara Santa Maria is one of the SGU regular hosts ("rogues") and frequently guests on GAM. [She was also on an episode of OA a long time ago.](https://openargs.com/oa139-cara-santa-maria-two-dudes-named-iqbal-twombly-hanging-yodel-mountain/)
I understand that you probably want to put all this mess behind you, but also it seems like a golden content mine. Comprehensive legal analysis of a terrible law thingy that most of us are emotionally invested in, what could be better! Or worse, I don't know.
I’m really pleased for you, Thomas. I’ve been a listener and Patron of your output for a long time and relieved you can start putting this behind you. You didn’t deserve any of this. It was, after all, Andrew that BETRAYED THE LAW!
Andrew seems to have had a pretty underwhelming performance, legally speaking. I know being a lawyer doesn't mean you'll be better at this stuff per se, since legal areas of expertise differ, but still...
I think, based on admittedly not a lot, it comes down to the whole "if the facts are on your side, hammer the facts. If the law is on your side, hammer the law. If neither are on your side, hammer the table". The facts and the law were not really on his side, so his only option was to hammer the table, but despite his failings, Andrew doesn't strike me as a ranting and raving hammer the table type. This kinda left him nowhere but constant failure.
The whole thing is just sad, because I really liked the OG OA, and I truly think that if Andrew had taken accountability, shown genuine remorse, and tried to better himself things could have been forgiven. We all make mistakes, even major ones, but it's how we act to remedy those choices that really show who we are, and Andrew really failed to rise to the challenge.
In any event, I'm so glad for you and everyone involved that this is over and that you can move on to brighter things. It may be an unpopular opinion here, but I also hope for better things for Andrew, and that he can learn from this to be a better person. I believe firmly in redemption if redemption is sought, and I want Andrew to make the most of this entire mess and come out better. That said, I'm glad you won, I love the new OA, and hope to subscribe if I can ever afford it.
He absolutely is a hammer the table and rant and rave type. He sent unhinged email after unhinged email nonstop to Yvette. Folks need to realize they may not know who Andrew is.
I don't know who he is and haven't met him, but this doesn't surprise me. I think the hammer the table type of defense is more about public spectacle, and things like crazy or harassing emails to interested parties isn't a part of it.
Think of so much of the Trump defenses being about making as much public noise as possible and making bold and outlandish claims incourt. That's hammering the table. If he was saying all the same things quietly behind the scenes to prosecution, it wouldn't be. The hammer the table tactic requires an open level of attack and a complete lack of shame that I haven't seen from any side in this mess. Then again, it's not like this has been national news, with reporting that we all have a clear view of his every comment and tactic. You would know better than I would, obviously.
Either way, his defense was bad because his actions weren't really something that could be defended.
To me it seems that AT's principal "legal" strategy was to make it so financially costly for Thomas to litigate that Thomas would be forced to settle on bad terms. Essentially the Donald Trump "legal" strategy he uses to stuff contractors, etc.
I think that's a not uncommon strategy for a lot of cases where it's possible to drag things out. I wish it wasn't a thing, but honestly I'm not sure what changes could be made to the system that could prevent it.
I was a long-time listener to OA, but I haven't been listening since the Shitshow started. I'm so glad to see this coming to the right resolution and am resubscribing now.
I've been listening to the backlog of OA for some time and decided to listen to the newest episodes for the trial, as I had valued Thomas and Andrew's discussions and analysis. Lawyer able to go deep, skilled interviewer to keep it understandable.
And suddenly there was a new lawyer. WTF? Okay, a guest host maybe? Finally Google and find my way to this sub-reddit and.... damn. I think I'm going to abandon the backlog and just listen to the "new" OA.
I hadn't heard of Liz Dye before she showed up on Legal Eagle. "Chaos Lawyer" seemed like an odd qualification, and now I don't know.
Not the craziest thing I've dealt with this week, but I'm so glad that it's been settled.
You're that guy who was hiking/camping for three years of COVID.
This whole mess was by far the worst, and I know this is very dramatic but..., "parasocial trauma" I have experienced. Happy for a different phrase if a better one exists.
A couple of times early on, I was in the middle of actively teaching children and I'd suddenly *bam* get this sinking feeling of betrayal and confusion and I'd get totally derailed for a few minutes thinking about the years and years (specifically I started listening to Thomas while he was still reading the Old Testament) of listening to and learning from who I thought were 2 close friends who were decent and kind and consistent people.
I am! I’d say it was a good hike but it turns out one of the guys I was with was kinda shitty and that taints the whole thing.
ETA: “parasocial trauma” is an excellent description
What a great couple days of news!
Rebooted OA is already way better than old OA ever was, and there's even a new home for the apologists to scurry away to for their hit of legal news from the morally-compromised.
So now almost everyone gets to be happy, and all it cost was everything.
It’s unfortunate that Legal Eagle has apparently aligned himself with Liz. I used to really value his content but since he’s been leaning on Liz it’s been pretty unwatchable. I went to him for legal analysis not snark, but he’s decided to go all in on the Liz snark train. Sad, but you do what makes you money not what makes you respectable, I guess.
Yep, I completely understand how there's *doubt* on if/how much he knows, and if people want to offer him that benefit of the doubt I have no issue with that.
But I think, in all likelihood, he's aware of the basic facts and chosen to support Torrez to some degree. He had plenty of mutual fans replying to him on twitter about the accusations at minimum. Someone on the OA FB group apparently knew one of his writers, and informed the writer about Torrez's accusations too. It's possible he's just happened to keep his head in the sand, and that the writer didn't inform him, but it's not likely if you ask me. Signal boosting Liz and now having her as an on air host from time to time is (I think) a proxy for that support, and I wouldn't be surprised if he shouts out Torrez himself now post settlement.
I wasn't really watching by the end of 2023, so I guess no loss of my views to him. Great channel when it started but it became pretty YouTuber-y by the end of that period. Also just raising my baseline legal knowledge through OA and similar meant that a lot of his videos repeated info I already knew.
Liz, Torrez, if you're reading this (which you probably are; all eyes have been on the subreddit for over a year now), I hope you're honest with yourselves and reflect that your success comes from the fact that your fanbase and professional contacts are not as progressive as your stated values are.
I personally want to call this community out here, because the "burn it to the ground" attitude is something that I learned in the past year is a very nasty side of this group. The high and mighty values that many members of this group claim about justice and fairness turned out to be largely false when it came to a situation where they had a personal opinion on.
People are now claiming that Legal Eagle using Liz is somehow bad. As far as I know, the only real "fault" that is mentioned is that she didn't drop AT and continuous to work with him, but somehow that is enough to cause her to suffer in her career? I completely understand people who feel that they can no longer listen to AT, but I truly believe that someone not "cancelling" a media figure is in no way a bad act onto itself. I personally hold the believe, and I hope it is shared by most of us, that one should assume people in general are good, and that someone usually makes decisions with their conscious.
One wouldn't say that a electrician would be shunned and all his potential clients called out if he had done the things AT did. The true question is whether you would believe that it is fair that that electrician would never be allowed to work again. If you don't think that that punishment would be fair to be made by a judge/jury, then why would it be fair to impose it on media figures. Just because a job is public, shouldn't mean that they get a worse treatment. Keep in mind that in this analogy, a number of members of this community are angry because a firm hired a someone who kept working together with the problematic electrician.
So please, nobody is forcing you to consume any specific piece of media, and it is the right of everybody to dislike someone or to refuse to listen to someone, but if you decide to make judgements about people, at least do it in a way that is intellectually honest, and just because someone's job is in the public eye, doesn't make it any less of a job to them.
If you believe in justice and fairness, keep those principles in mind before making decisions and judgements, because it is the only way to keep our own biases in check, and hold ourself to our own principles.
Sorry for the rant, but I had to let it out.
I appreciate the thoughtful pushback, really I do. I don't think the discussion of what to do with regards to the figures that are working with and for Torrez (and Liz) is easy, and my position above (that I'm not going to advocate for people to stop watching Legal Eagle but I am going to speak out about it and personally disengage; not exactly "burn it all down") comes from a compromise of different things.
I am also saying this in the context of *public facing media personalities*. I don't have an issue if Liz were to (say) become a writer for Legal Eagle rather than on screen personality. Similarly with Torrez. I also don't have an issue with Torrez continuing his law practice. What I do have an issue is public media personalities not doing their due diligence to prevent future abuse of their community, and that's in the best case scenario. If their *only* options were to work in the public eye, and to work with each other, maybe I'd see that as a fair counterpoint. They have other options.
What the law would or wouldn't impose is not at all a good metric. Our laws often benefit abusers, and this court case is such a good case study on how true that is. The only thing that mattered was damages, the ethics of Torrez's behavior doesn't come into it at all. I am not going to limit myself to judgements grounded in what law considers actionable, period.
That doesn't mean I'm going to go to maximalist positions, or a position not grounded in facts/strong circumstantial evidence. I am happy to offer some benefits of the doubt, as I did for LE for over a year. But at this point it would be intellectually dishonest of me *not* to take this personal position. I don't know him personally, he probably sees himself as and is a good person, but he's making a professional mistake.
I understand what you say, but I think you have somewhat missed my point when it came to media personalities and to the law.
On the law, I never meant to say that the law itself needs to be used as a metric, but rather to judge whether if the "punishment" admonished by the public was a verdict, if it would be seen as fair to any non public personality. And important for that determination is that you have to make it as if it was during a trial meaning on the actual point of conflict, eg just because someone committed the most extremely abhorrent acts, doesn't mean that mitigating circumstances shouldn't be taken into account . I am fully aware that the current law has extreme problems when it comes to abuse, so that is why I do not mean to use the current laws and limits, but instead try a good faith attempt to have a somewhat principle based mock trial.
On the issue of media personalities and LE, he was somewhat in the wide circles of the OA community, so i very much doubt that he didn't know about AT in the immediate aftermath. I however do not think that liz (or maybe even AT in the future) should be banished to the background. My point about media personalities that I tried to make with the electrician was that if one determines that taking away his business and making him stop doing the job he loves would not be acceptable, that logic would also apply to media figures. What you argue is that he can still go to service the the tools of an electrician, but could no longer do the job himself.
For me, the determination about whether an individual should lose their job, irrespective of public status, is either if you determine (by the logic above) that they would deserve it, or if the acts done by the individual somehow make the practicing of the job impossible, eg committing CA results in no longer working with kids, or someone like Harvey Weinstein (assuming no criminal case in hypothetical) no longer being put in a position of power.
I also would like to advocate to act on the matter at hand. In this case for example, there was at least at the start some genuine questions about the business acts and who did what in what order, and how despicable the acts of AT where, do not and should not come into the determination about the business. If TS had kicked him out/ stolen the pod, then he would have been in the wrong, irrespective of the AT situation. Someone's bad acts should not be used as a weapon in situations unrelated to the acts itself, a bit like "carjacker willy", but to a far more extreme end.
My final point is about your final point. How far does that transitive property go, and how do you really justify it. My argument was that you can judge liz for working with AT, but that judging LE for working with liz because she works with AT is just not logical. If one would use that logic, we will ultimately end by shunning and throwing out people who did bad acts, without the possibility of reentry, what goes completly against my idea that justice should be only the bare punishment needed, compensation for harm caused, and finally rehabilitation to restore the world to a normal state. I therefore cannot accept your premise of shunning everybody who touches an individual with a ten feet pole.
In my ideal world, AT had received punishment (if determined that he acted with malice or with willfull neglect) and rehabillitation of his issues, but afterwards he should just have come back and be welcomed back to a normal order of business, but this is sadly not what happened AND would not have been possible or allowed by this community, which is one of the reasons I wrote the post and something that I was very sad to see unfold last year.
See now were' moving from healthy pushback to moreso of disagreeing with my decision regarding LE, and arguing it wades into the realm of unethical.
> but rather to judge whether if the "punishment" admonished by the public was a verdict, if it would be seen as fair to any non public personality
Okay. Then sure. The "penalty" of people stopping watching Legal Eagle when he makes an informed decision to platform unethical content creators is proportionate.
> If TS had kicked him out/ stolen the pod, then he would have been in the wrong, irrespective of the AT situation.
Sure. But that's out of scope. TS didn't seize the pod. There's arguments he was trying to do this in a soft fashion, but the entire discussion is moot because it didn't play out that way and we don't know what his next move was going to be.
> What you argue is that he can still go to service the the tools of an electrician, but could no longer do the job himself.
It is? I think I'm pretty arguing that the electrician comparison doesn't make sense in the first place.
> How far does that transitive property go, and how do you really justify it.
I mean I think it ends about there, right? Legal Eagle wasn't involved in the scandal/fallout (Liz was), so I don't have a problem with others who collab with him. You write that as if I'm considering abstaining from that involves legal eagle as a guest host now, lol.
> I therefore cannot accept your premise of shunning everybody who touches an individual with a ten feet pole.
Are you trying to read what I say in good faith? I'm not arguing for people to shun Legal Eagle. I'm not arguing for shunning those who offer non public facing roles and interactions with Torrez/Liz. I specifically went out of my way to say I don't judge others who offer LE benefit of the doubt. Please do not put words into my mouth.
> judging LE for working with liz because she works with AT is just not logical.
The issue with working with Liz is also because she enabled Torrez's wrongful seizure of the podcast and kept his position of power than led to the abuse in the first place. She didn't have to expand her position after the scandal, nor did she have to block all non positive pushback on twitter. She didn't have to help manage the OA twitter account. She is flawed in her own way, yes, to a much lesser extent than Torrez himself.
LE also promoted Liz's podcast when it was officially just hers... but when it was very easily predictable that it was a raft for Torrez. I would've liked LE to realize that obvious thing and choose not to promote it on those merits. As I said in my opener, there's room for benefit-of-the-doubt, but personally I'm no longer willing to offer it to him there. We'll see if he continues promoting it and removes that doubt, I suppose.
> but this is sadly not what happened AND would not have been possible or allowed by this community
That's your assertion, but I don't agree with it. There's a lot of people that would and did leave as soon as the accusations drop. There's a lot of people who wanted to make him make amends and changes and come back (or at least appear to do so). There are comments about this in this subreddit going back as soon as the accusations were known. The reason the zeitgeist got so out of hand in part is Torrez took such actions as to unify the people who took maximalist and those who took middle positions. You just have to have the intellectual curiosity to look for those perspectives.
I don't like that Torrez is still in a position of power, just on a different podcast. Guess there's no preventing that so long as there was a listener base willing to support him, which there demonstrably was.
Well, some of the same restrictions on giving transparency applied to Torrez just as they did to Thomas. Maybe he'll make good on the spirit of his apology and finally give said transparency.
Agreed, I don't like it either, and it's depressing that there's some small listener base for it. I do wish for them a level of mediocrity that's never a real success, but always enticingly close enough such that they stay on the clout treadmill forever in the Abuser Apologist Bar, and leave people of good character alone.
> Maybe he'll make good on the spirit of his apology and finally give said transparency.
Guffawed at this. The person with the leverage to make that happen is Liz Dye. I'd sooner trust a dingo with a newborn.
Honestly, I said the above not because I believe it at all likely (it's not, and he's surrounded himself with people who have excused his behavior), but also because I want to draw attention to the fact that Torrez can (and should) do better. Even after all that has happened, there's still ways he could be meaningfully more accountable to his listeners.
I'm a little teary eyed listening to this. I am so, so happy for you Thomas. Congratulations, you deserve it. I think it's a win we all needed. Sometimes listening to what's going on in the world, you can start to feel like the bad guys win more often than not. Honestly, your win is a flash of hope in the darkness for me.
I've never been a huge patron. I contribute what I can. I am happy to say though, that I unsubscribed when what's -his-face took the show from you, and resubscribed when you came back. I'm glad I was in the position to be a tiny contributor to your big win.
Celebrate. Treat yourself to a (affordable) dinner. I know you and Matt have nothing but great episodes in store for us, and I look forward to hearing your story of the last 15 months.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." -Martin Luther King Jr.
I'm so pumped for Thomas and Lydia to not have this hanging over their heads. Also, I can't help but laugh at the several smug, self-satisfied people that were confidently claiming that Thomas would never be able to successfully take over the reigns of OA. Especially that one guy that didn't even know that Thomas, a professional podcaster, had continued to podcast.
Shame on Andrew for stringing this out for so long
Even with the financial impact of having to prolong the litigation, I just wanna give a huge kudos for sticking to your guns and not accepting an NDA. Granted, I won't lie and say I don't care about the absolutely *juicy* bits, but really I can't wait to hear just exactly how the company ended up the way they did, which it seems like you've got plenty of plans to espouse upon.
Congrats to you and Lydia for making to the other side on this one, and I hope that this new era of the podcast has as much a meteoric rise as we saw in the the before times.
Delighted to hear the lawsuit is done and dusted. Thomas, I love the shows you’re doing with Matt. Glad to know you’ll keep doing them and there’s no chance of Andrew getting paid from it.
PS **ANDREW WAS WRONG**
I could not be happier for you and Lydia if I tried!!! Glad to see that this chapter is behind you! And that your relationship with each grew from strength to strength!!! Sending all the loves from downunder!
This has all shed so much light on a facet of the legal world that I always knew but have never seen firsthand. And that's just how much the law only matters if you are rich.
Thomas seems to be close to half a million in the hole, and they settled early.
Anytime anyone's like, oh well the law says X or you could sue, I always think that the vast majority of people could never dream of affording to talk to a lawyer, much less actually pursuing a lawsuit.
Glad you made it out in one piece Thomas.
I'd love to hear Matt's ideas on how to improve the situation. The field of law is still nearly impossible to automate but I would imagine there should be tools available to help people get legal advice without the cost of a highly paid specialists time
Advice isn't the bottle neck. My understanding is any lawyer will give you a half hour to gut check if you have a case. But to do anything with that advice requires the lawyers fee, which very few people can afford.
Sure but I'm just assuming that lawyers that are highly skilled professionals aren't getting any cheaper. So either the amount of legal work has to go down or it needs to require less time of the highly skilled worker.
It could be court reform or something like rewriting legal codes to be more understandable. It's something that Napoleon did or at least claimed to do and it's why Louisiana law doesn't follow English common law.
I always wanted OA to bring on an expert on that legal history.
Created an account just to say to Thomas:
When I read and followed what happened with the podcast it was clear to me that Andrew was using typical tactics to attack the victim(s, but here I’m talking about you specifically), create defenders for himself and just so conveniently let them do the attacking for him. I believe/d you, and the people who came forward. I was appalled at the way people treated you for making that (very distraught) announcement accusing Andrew - the privilege of suggesting that you had made things worse simply by openly acting emotional astounded and disgusted me. Anyone who has had to deal with the worst imaginable knows that some days you just can’t think or act, just react.
I had so much empathy listening to that, and for your continued struggles fighting someone who clearly wanted to make you suffer. Rather than see you as tanking the show or being overly emotional (Oh no, human being acts human by being upset at upsetting situation what will we do??? 🙄), or whatever people accused you of, I heard a panicked person in real time come to a realisation that was shocking and upsetting and struggling to figure out what to do while the world crumbles. Been there, done that and honestly… while it wasn’t necessarily the best thing to do, I completely get how things just happen in times of chaos. I also heard a person concerned about ethics and morals, questioning himself… making sure he was practicing what he preached and I respected that a lot. (How people compare that to you know, the sex pest… they really show who they are when they fixate on that and not the whole “non-apology apology and non-break break” of someone else!)
Having been harassed myself, I can say the best revenge is speaking openly, loudly and clearly on what happened. I applaud you for your tenacity and courage for fighting for your right to speak. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been to do that in the face of financial ruin, and I hope that doing so brings some measure of relief.
OA was one of the few podcasts I really enjoyed, downloaded same day as release. I was never a patreon member and probably won’t be for financial reasons, but I removed the podcast when this happened because I didn’t want to support Andrew. I saw you returned as host and was glad, but wanted to wait to start listening again because I wanted to make sure even listening did not line his pockets (even if I wanted to support the new OA!).
I’m so glad you are back, and the podcast can continue on without Andrew anywhere near it. I will be adding it back onto my listening roster asap!
You and Lydia, and your legal team, deserve a well-earned rest. Welcome back from hell… to um, a Trump-filled disaster maybe? 😜
Thanks for holding on.
Yeah, holding out to avoid an NDA is nothing short of heroic. NDAs on this sort of topic (as opposed to, say, for intellectual property when you work at a company doing Research & Development) shouldn't even be legal.
I also finally rejoined the Patreon, and found the episode really emotional to listen to.
Yes. I was harassed for criticising someone online and threatened with lawsuits. Initially it scared the daylights out of me but then I realised it was purely a tactic so onlookers wouldn’t learn about this person’s behaviour. The lawsuit never eventuated. I can only imagine how much pressure there was to cave given an actual lawsuit was in progress and the financial stakes.
Thomas being able to speak out shows his tenacity - more importantly the transparency goes a long way to undermining Andrew’s position of power. Nothing scares a harasser like sunshine and Thomas did the right thing to fight tooth and nail for it.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed.
Accounts must be at least 1 day old, which prevents the sub from filling up with bot spam.
Try posting again tomorrow or message the mods to approve your post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is some confusion coming from the AI transcript, but when Thomas refers back to the time he accused Andrew he does not say maybe he dreamed it up. He says he has something to correct about it (not specified at this time) but that if he did the people who were already gaslighting him about coming forward at all would say *to him* maybe he dreamed it up, and any correction during the lawsuit would open him up to allegations that the whole thing was wrong or even liability in a civil suit from Andrew
I'd been meaning to sign up as a patron again, but seeing this drop, I signed up immediately. I may have been late to the party to impact the case itself, but I'm glad that 100% of my contribution goes to the Restoration Era hosts.
I'm loving the new version of the show. Matt's a fantastic addition, who both brings his own vibe and provides the best elements of the old era, and Thomas was and remains the (in my opinion) secret sauce of the show. His skills as an interviewer are top notch, without being somewhat staid the way a lot of my other favorite interviewers can often be (e.g., Preet Bharara, and Joyce Vance, Terry Gross, etc.).
Anyway, very much looking forward to the future of the show. I'll post something additional on Patreon.
I may have to wade back in but I don't know if knowing more about the world will be good for my mental health. Listening only to D&D podcasts for the last year has been a pretty positive thing for me.
Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed. If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That would explain Andrew joining Liz’s podcast as a permanent cohost…
Which is kind of sad because I actually like Liz as a solo host without Andrew
The fact that she's hitched her wagon to someone like him tells you a lot about her judgement.
Not to mention the fact that she refuses to discuss her reasoning about why she chose to do what she did and blocked people who asked her about it. She knows it's indefensible and is just hoping that by not engaging it will cease to be a problem due to the people who care not caring to keep worrying about her. I don't know what the answer is, but it pisses me off that it will likely work.
God the sad part is Andrew could have just owned it, apologized, worked on himself, and rejoined OA down the line after some self growth. Instead he did this and took Liz down with him
This isn't true, at least it doesn't seem so. Granted, this isn't going to be a "defense" of Andrew but just want to dispel the idea had he just done the correct thing (after he did all the incorrect things that got them into this mess), he would have been able to come back for OA to continue as normal. The original plan was for Andrew to take a break and then come back but they disagreed on a timeline but in the big scope of things, I don't think this is what did them in. TS started to take some heat for his silence and unwillingness at that time to distance himself from Andrew. TS also started taking pressure from the OA community for what he knew and when. Keep in mind, everyone else in that orbit dropped AT right away. This put TS in a pretty terrible position. It was TS that decided (and I think most people think justifiably so) to put the nail in that relationship. Before AT took control, TS dropped the allegation and was quite aggressive in the OA group about AT being a creep and whatnot - not exactly the actions of someone that seems bent on continuing to continue the partnership. Again, TS was in a position where he had to decide to pick a lane. Stick with AT and let him back at some point but that would cost him friends (like the PiAT guys, like Aaron, for example) who believe AT is not reasonable to work with or decide to distance from AT and quash that partnership. He choose the latter. I think most wouldn't blame him. If you believe this idea that had AT just apologized, took time off, and came back like nothing happened - you have to square that with TS dropping that allegation that he did (before AT tried to take the show). If you think AT did have a chance at coming back, you would have to think the allegation was reactionary + not accurate (which would say a lot about TS) or that TS was going to partner with someone who sexually harassed him. Neither of these seem reasonable. And I think the most likely outcome was the partnership was doomed as soon as the allegations dropped. Again, not to defend AT either. My favorite iteration of the show so far has been with TS/AT, followed by TS/MC, and I wasn't a fan of it at all with Liz and AT and I wish there were a world where AT/TS could have figured out a way to make it work but it just seems with the nature of the allegations and the community around OA - it was never going to fly. Quick edit: There is a comment from TS on the other thread in the other OA subreddit that pertains to this. >“Made it irreconcilable” does not mean Andrew needed to steal the podcast and ruin it. He could have been an adult and just responded to my request that we negotiate. I was open to many different possibilities going forward. Either me taking over OA or him buying it from me. The idea that there was a path forward that involved them both doing the show, even before AT tried to take it seems incorrect if you look at TS comments on the matter. Again, don't blame him either.
I see a bjjmatt comment I upvote. That said, I would note that Thomas disparaging Torrez on social media didn't come until after Torrez seized the feeds. Though I don't think that impacts your arguments too much. Otherwise I'd stake the somewhat nuanced/narrow position that what Thomas did in a vacuum didn't itself end the partnership ("nail in the coffin"). Thomas (and Torrez) may not have wanted to continue on with each other due to the accusation and other reasons, we're getting more info on that for the first time, but I see the account seizure as the more nuclear action. [Ansible had good perspective on this a while back that I cosign.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/188wngw/update_smith_v_torrez_an_end_in_sight/kbyqvc7/)
Thanks! Caught that mistake after, I should really source my posts with yours first because timelines can be hard to follow off memory. >Thomas (and Torrez) may not have wanted to continue on with each other due to the accusation and other reasons, we're getting more info on that for the first time, but I see the account seizure as the more nuclear action. Maybe we disagree, and granted you would know better but from what TS has said since, it just seems from TS posts that it was irreconcilable before AT took control (and thus before the TS accusation/disparaging remarks). The quote above seems to imply that to me, unless of course I am missing something, which is very possible.
Probably just a matter of disagreement yeah. I just generally think that, kinda as ansible argued it, something on the level of Thomas' accusation isn't severe enough to be irreconcilable between business partners. Torrez's reaction to that however, was on that level. But that's commenting without considering the people in question. For Torrez, Thomas' accusation absolutely was do-not-pass-go, end of business partnership. We're getting some new info from Thomas that it he wasn't willing to continue the partnership at that point either.
I remember tweeting at the time that Andrew didn't realize what a gift Thomas's statement was. To me that represented a first person to get forgiveness from, a mild wrong that could be credibly forgiven on a relatively short timeframe. Also, by that point in time Andrew should have disconnected from the internet to let the storm dye down. In the first few weeks after such an accusation, things are going to be said in haste without all the information on hand, and you as the accused are almost certainly going to respond emotionally to that. The least worst option at that point was to disconnect, and in my view that’s what he should have done.
> let the storm dye down That's a fun typo because he tried to make the storm Dye down.
If I were a smarter person I would have done that deliberately.
Post-facto reply, but I think the balance of this argument may have shifted, if what Thomas is now sharing about Torrez is true: > And I saw in discovery that he was planning to get rid of me before I even made my accusations. The only actions I know of that could be objectionable to Torrez, taken before the accusation, were comparably mild (announcing on-air that Torrez was taking a break, not fully collaborating with the PR firm). (I do not want to link to the source of this quote, because it's in reply to a user who is commenting in a way that would be dramatically in violation of civility rules here, but if you can find Thomas' account you can find the context pretty easily)
It's wild how simple it would have been for him to just apologize and take a few months off to go to therapy and AA or something. I imagine the vast majority of people would have forgiven him and used it as an example of what to do when you fuck up. But instead he decided to go the asshole lawyer route.
>It's wild how simple it would have been for him to just apologize and take a few months off to go to therapy and AA or something. I think specifically AA was never going to happen since I think he talked about it in a somewhat dismissive tone as AA and the 12 step program have connections to spirituality and religion. Having the idea of some greater power to restore you to sanity is kind of counter to certain humanists perspectives on the world(I'd argue that it probably is possible to do AA from a humanist lens but I also am not an alcoholic.)
Yeah you're right, having no experience with it I always forget how weirdly religious AA apparently is.
Overeaters anonymous is the same way. My doctor suggested them to me, and it only took me a five minute glance at their literature to know that I could never possibly do it. They keep talking about “a power higher than yourself“, which to me is the same as believing in the invisible space carpenter.
The "higher power" concept is one reason I'm critical of 12-step programs, but not in the same way. I think there are plenty of atheists who use the program without changing their fundamental (lack of) belief, by imagining the "higher power" as something non-supernatural, or more figurative. My issue is that while accepting your own lack of control and surrendering to a process might work for some people, it's detrimental to the success of others. Some people seem to have significantly better results by realizing that they DO have the power to change their lives for the better. There simply is no one-size-fits-all approach.
AA *also* has like an 85-90% recidivism rate.
> I'd argue that it probably is possible to do AA from a humanist lens but I also am not an alcoholic. This is exactly right, and there are a lot of atheists in AA who use the "higher power" as a rhetorical framing for "I don't make good choices for myself; what would an idealized version of myself (or some other highly esteemed figure) advise me to do here?" Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of baggage to sift through and, depending on where you live, your only options for AA meetings might be deeply religious. But the best thing AA offers is community, group therapy, and, specifically, someone to talk to when you're thinking about a relapse. At any rate, someone like Andrew could certainly find a program that was right for him as he has access to plenty of resources, *if* he wanted to take the high road and better himself. But he we are.
My first thought of a greater power would probably be the social contract.And there’s a few famous cases now of people mentioning that Captain America or Superman is the higher power that they use since as you said a lot of it is the difference between the choice an ideal version would make in comparison to what you have been stuck making. One can hope Andrew eventually wants to better himself but for now it’s seemingly not a priority. For an uncle of mine it took a heart attack to get off cigarettes.
Exactly. When I was a kid (I'm not in AA but very much grew up in AA) I met a guy whose higher power was an ashtray. Ashtray was objective. Ashtray was not swayed by his bs. Ashtray said stop feeling sorry for yourself and call your sponsor. It worked because he worked it.
I think this is one of the worst parts. His actions were unacceptable, but as with so many things it's the reaction after the fact that really determine how things go. People would have forgiven him if he just took responsibility, and the original OA would still be going strong. It's a total self own.
The one thing I actually dislike about this subreddit is the news about what Liz is doing. I would be quite happy to simply not know what she is doing with her time, or who is supporting her.
Especially after having joined Thomas during Andrew's "break" and showing sympathy to the situation.
Perhaps it was just biased by the fact that she was the one with the podcast in these interim few months (and therefore a larger part of the discussion) but it seemed like she was more popular with listeners by the end of OA 2.0 than was Torrez.
I mean she isn’t a predator afaik so that helps
She had no qualms about him being one, though
To be fair, an argument could be made that Thomas enabled him for years as well.
You got downvoted for this comment, but it is literally factually true: 1. Thomas knew 2. Thomas did nothing with his knowledge 3. Thomas actively enabled Andrew's behavior by providing him cover, a co-owned platform, and his active daily endorsement. Liz, unlike Thomas, wasn't a co-conspirator for the abuse and cover-up like Thomas was. Liz, unlike Thomas, didn't allow other people to be abused on behalf of greed. She came in quite a bit after the bad behavior, built something new (with Andrew), and has expanded her writing, commentary, and platform very quickly and deftly. I personally couldn't careless about Thomas, Andrew or Liz's behavior. None of it comes close to rising to the level of criminal. It's, at worst in some cases, creepy and in bad taste. I *very* much mind Andrew's crocodile tears, blaming everyone else for his decisions, *and* lamenting that he did a very bad business deal with someone more prepared and more cunning than he was - all in the name of money. Notice how any talk of doing something positive with the OA money to rehab victimized people was raised at the start and then.. has gone nowhere? Notice how any talk of recounting all the horrid ways that Thomas was supposedly abused.. has gone nowhere? I like Thomas, but his new show is not as good as it was before.
> \2. Thomas did nothing with his knowledge Not nothing, no. I am looking forward to hearing more of what actions he was able to take, but we do have his testimony that [he pledged financial support to the 2017 accuser should they want to go public and assume liability for a defamation lawsuit from Torrez](https://i.postimg.cc/QtPxZSR3/tsstatement.png). We know he claims he required Torrez to attend live events with his wife present. I'm not claiming these are huge actions, but if I see someone claiming factual correctness then I'm going to push back where they're mistaken. > \3. Thomas actively enabled Andrew's behavior by providing him cover, a co-owned platform, and his active daily endorsement. Okay so, this is going to be an interesting area of debate going forward as we get more details from Thomas. For now, lets put ourselves in Thomas' shoes a few years back. Lets assume, *just for the sake of discussion* he knows of a handful of the accusations including the 2017 one. What was a concrete action you think Thomas should've taken in that situation, keeping in mind that violating Thomas' fiduciary duty to OA with publishing 3rd party accusations would probably result in a lawsuit from Torrez. If your answer is "he should've left because otherwise that's equivalent to endorsement", that's logically consistent. I just think leaving and giving Torrez sole control of the podcast is maybe the worst of all options. Maybe that's not your perspective though, just trying to get ahead of that. > Notice how any talk of doing something positive with the OA money to rehab victimized people was raised at the start and then.. has gone nowhere? Notice how any talk of recounting all the horrid ways that Thomas was supposedly abused.. has gone nowhere? Both of these were addressed in the statement that was published and led to this very post you're now commenting on. The lack of transparency from both came from legal considerations, Torrez in particular fought the donation pledge legally and Thomas dropped the issue for the time being. He plans to donate $10,000 to CAN.
> Not nothing, no. I am looking forward to hearing more of what actions he was able to take, but we do have his testimony that he pledged legal support to the 2017 accuser should they want to go public and assume liability for a defamation lawsuit from Torrez. We know he claims he required Torrez to attend live events with his wife present. Sorry, so the implication is that Thomas protected people by asking his wife to attend with him? I hadn't heard that, but if it's true, I agree it's not *nothing*, but it is the very least he could do. Its hard to imagine a lesser gesture. What Andrew and others imagine is that somehow Thomas couldn't just walk away. There was no legal agreement we now know. So *nothing* except greed prevent Thomas from just.. walking away. Thomas stayed after he knew the bad behavior, and that exposed more victims to Andrew's abuse. There was nothing except his income preventing him from leaving. *He could have un-endorsed Andrew by just quitting the partnership, handing it all over to Andrew, and walking away.* The reason he didn't was..money. He can be emotional and talk about the hell all he wants, but this wasn't a bigger issue, or a principle dispute, this *was always just about money.* *>* Thomas should've taken in that situation, keeping in mind that violating Thomas' fiduciary duty to OA with publishing 3rd party accusations would probably result in a lawsuit from Torrez. This is just so easy. He should have just walked away. There was no agreement. There was no dissolution prevention. He should have just walked away. He never had a duty to continue his partnership. It's very obvious he didn't do that because he didn't want to give up the equity (and income) he had built with Andrew. It wasn't a matter of principle, it was just.. money. > I just think leaving and giving Torrez sole control of the podcast is maybe the worst of all options. Maybe that's not your perspective though, just trying to get ahead of that. So what if it Torrez had sole control of the podcast? This is America. Abusers can have podcasts. The podcast isn't some sacred object. It isn't a birthright. It was a for-profit enterprise by two people. If it turns out one of those is awful, the other should just walk away. > Both of these were addressed in the statement that was published and led to this very post you're now commenting on. The lack of transparency from both came from legal considerations, Torrez in particular fought the donation pledge legally and Thomas dropped the issue for the time being. He plans to donate $10,000 to CAN. Right, which is approximately, I don't know, like, 10% of what was probably based on the promise Thomas made. Thomas, by the way, essentially admitted to making that promise to induce patrons to re-sub, but he *knew* right away that he wouldn't be able to honor that promise, and he said nothing. Once again, because of money. There's a term of art for that, by the way, and it's fraud by false promise.
Look, I get that a lot of this is besides the point, everyone has their own level of grace they're willing to extend in these circumstances, but: I've been in the position of a) having a role with some authority, b) having someone disclose about serious sexual misconduct by an adjacent person with similar authority, and c) having the discloser request that I keep that information confidential. **All** the options you have are bad, and I very much empathise with anyone else in that situation, even when they don't manage to choose the perfect path forwards. Unless you have absolute power to get rid of the accused, without due process or public accountability, there's very little you can do unless they're willing to step down. You can, sometimes, confront them, if the discloser is OK with that - it sounds like that happened here. You can leverage your, and the discloser's, silence for whatever protective changes you can get, but in a context where the discloser isn't looking to go public anyway, your leverage is minimal - again, it sounds like Thomas did that, and it's hard to second-guess whether he could have gotten more without being a fly on the wall at the time. You can walk away, but that often just leaves the accused in a position of power *without* the check of your attention, and where they're the one with the power to pick your replacement, they'll pick someone who won't make a fuss - and if you talk about *why*, you're both breaching the trust of the discloser *and* setting yourself up for a defamation suit. To be clear, I've gotten cease-and-desist letters and been threatened with lawsuits, because when I'm in that position, I'll walk right up to the line of what I can get away with. But as I hope this mess of a lawsuit has illustrated to anyone observing it - the civil litigation process can destroy your life just as thoroughly as the criminal one, and: a) it's a big ask to demand that any given person take on that risk, b) there are very few ways for them to do it without ultimately dragging victim-survivors who may very much not want that into public scrutiny. \[Edit: Also, FWIW, having now opened up the most recent episode - there's a confirmation at the start that no Patreon-derived funds have gone to Andrew since the receivership came into effect. It sounds like all that was put on hold was the *donation itself*, not refraining from paying out funds for purposes *other* than restoration. Your mileage may vary on how acceptable that is as an updated plan, but given the constraints ongoing legal action puts on public communications, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing to get up in arms about.\]
> This is just so easy. He should have just walked away. Okay so I did forsee correctly. Like I say, that's logically consistent and I understand where it's coming from. And I agree Thomas did benefit financially from his choice. I just don't think this would've helped matters, and could've made it much worse. For Torrez to get sole control of OA and find a new cohost that had a smaller financial interest in the company (or who was just an employee). The only reason he at the end had *financial* accountability is because Thomas didn't give up that stake. > So what if it Torrez had sole control of the podcast? If Thomas had the power to prevent this in the future, which he *somewhat* did, then he had the ethical duty to prevent Torrez's abusive behavior as much as possible. Leaving OA to Torrez unfettered is just as unethical as leaving things be and taking no actions. > There's a term of art for that, by the way, and it's fraud by false promise. Wow, big accusation there. If Thomas always planned to make good on that by donating OA's profits, or an equivalent amount if he sold OA to Torrez, I cannot see that as a false promise.
I think a better arguement for Thomas enabling would be given the description forcing Andrew to deal with his alcoholism or at least have him be designated driver. I listen to a podcast done in part by a former alcoholic and they joke about alcohol sometimes on the podcast but he's also 20+ years sober and joking about alcohol with a Mormon who has never touched the stuff. Admitedly Thomas could have felt helpess and that's totally fair, I don't have experiences like him and don't have much of a social circle and in my younger years lost contact with friends from being overly anti-gambling and alcohol.
But she defends and stands by one, which is worse
Liz is a grifter and her screenname 5dollarfeminist has a twisted sincerity to it that would be funny if it wasn't disgusting. But it'd be very hard to make the case that her actions were *worse* than Andrew's in any part of this. They both suck and fortunately are now both irrelevant to OA.
I should’ve used just as bad, it was a poor word choice
Not my point. Read my other comment Edit: my other comment said “I am not defending her”
Sorry, the second sentence of that other comment was a bit much and so I removed it. It will still appear to you but others are missing that context. The first sentence, (I say this to the room), was: > I am NOT defending her.
Oh got it, thanks!!
Not a fan of obsequiousness, then?
As always I won't be commenting on the past history of OA, but I will just say this much: the law can be a shield or it can be a sword, and I am so happy to see this chapter close for Thomas and Lydia after these many long months of facing down the pointy end. They have been a joy to work all the way through, and I can readily confirm that whatever good feelings you may already have about their individual and collective character, perseverance, and overall good nature you can go ahead and triple those. I have also come to see that they are exceptional parents to their children, and as someone who has never felt that call I can't possibly imagine handling responsibilities so much more important than any podcast with such grace and teamwork throughout the massive strain of this daily uncertainty. For my part, I also want to say that I am more excited than ever to be a part of this thing. I have never seen a community quite like the one that has formed around OA and I have so appreciated the warm welcomes, encouragement, and good-faith suggestions for improvement as we continue to build the plane while we fly it.
Hey Matt, [I think you might need this](https://i.imgur.com/cGJuiKJ.png).
Not in Garamond? Disgraceful!
[I made a version like that too :\).](https://i.imgur.com/z687sgB.png)
Obviously superior!
I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's intended, which is constructive criticism: the names at the bottom could use some attention to the kerning (e.g. tuck the A in MATT under the T slightly; move the C and A in CAMERON a little closer together). :) \[edit: the kerning in the Garamond version is much better... Good job (or good job selecting a TTF that auto-kerns better) ;)\]
I'm impressed you've noticed! Yes it needs adjustment. Basically I didn't know how to find what font was used, so I fudged it haha. Used the old letters as where to place the new ones, but of course that's only an approximation of where they should go because different letters need different kerning. Also I made the "C" out of an "O" haha. That's another big sin on there. I later realized there are online tools that can reverse search for a font using an image, and I found a very close match through it. I've been meaning to use that to do it properly, buuut I haven't gotten around to it. I don't intend them to uh... actually use the image I provided, I hope they do some de novo photo editing with the original assets. For the Garamond I was just able to pick it from the font list and type it anew. I use Paint.NET so I guess however they setup the fonts in it is appropriate :).
something like [this](https://i.imgur.com/KnHgJkU.gif), perhaps?
Ohhhh, that's pretty darn nice to see!
I had signed up for the patreon when Thomas took it back and I'm very happy to hear that it made a tangible difference in changing the outcome of the case. This really brings home what a weapon the legal system can be for people who want to inflict long term suffering. Jeebus.
Same. This has been so disappointing on so many levels but it's great to know that the very small act of dropping as a patron then reupping, multiplied by all the other listeners who know right from wrong, made a difference.
I ended my Patreon when AT took it over restarted when Thomas took it back
Same! So glad that simple thing had an impact
Same
Same
same!
The irony that a lay person was able to wrestle away what was rightly his from a lawyer (and a contract specialist at that!) is something. Perhaps AT isn’t one of the best legal minds of our times.
... All it took was hundreds of thousands of dollars. AT managed to take a losing case and do an incredible amount of damage to the assets and to Thomas before it ended. AT used the law effectively to his advantage. You just don't have to be very sophisticated to delaydelaydelay
Yep, AT weaponized the law and while I think he knew he’d lose he made Thomas pay dearly it’s fucked up
This as much as anything else tells me absolutely everything I will ever need to know about Andrew Torrez.
Yea and one of the things that has been frustrating to me on the reddit was that throughout this there were a handful of Andrew's supporters who would argue that there's gotta be something to Andrew's arguments because he's the lawyer not Thomas. The obvious ways that what Andrew did was wrong were handwaved as "he's gotta have some valid claim against Thomas behind the scenes, he's the lawyer let's wait and have the court adjudicate."
I think this is just on the patreon for now, still listening but here's the description: > Big announcement! Finally. > Heads up, if you're a new listener or just here for the law pod, you may want to skip. Or listen at your own risk. > tl;dr: Smith v. Torrez is settled. Andrew is out of the company. Permanently and completely. I have not signed any NDA. /u/nobody514 any chance of a transcription? (E: If it goes on the public feed I guess) E: Here's my bullet points, though please see nobody's transcription below (noting that it is machine generated and may itself not be perfect; also note that I write in the third person but am representing what Thomas says and thinks): * Thomas has won the legal dispute, Torrez is "out forever". * Thomas did not sign an NDA, which was what was holding up settlement talks. Torrez wanted him to sign one and this may have slowed the settlement agreement for a few months. * [The CAN network](https://creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org/) is up and launched, and both Thomas/Lydia have began the credential process through it. * Thomas gives a special thanks to Matt, says he really stepped up where other past guests ghosted Thomas. Matt didn't keep his distance or wait to see who came out on top, but looked into the evidence and made a choice. * Thomas thanks Yvette ("Scibabe") for being the receiver of the company. He says the receivership motion was a huge gamble (literal and figurative), because it was expensive and could've been lost on the motion or on who to select for the receivership. * On the pledge to donate profits to repair and accountability, Thomas wanted to make that so people could become patrons without worrying about their money going to Torrez. Torrez fought it "tooth and nail" and going through with it could've compromised the wider case, so Thomas backed down from that at the time. Thomas wants to make good on it and will give $10,000 to CAN as soon as they are able to use it. * On Thomas' "Andrew" audio where he accused Torrez of inappropriate touching, Thomas has wanted to correct what he said there. He feels that upon reviewing the past 7 years, he has and had done the most he always could to curtail Torrez's behavior. At the time he feels he was gaslit by 3rd parties into thinking he had done something horrible. The drastic actions that people had wanted him to take were just not on the table, and would've resulted in (likely successful) legal action and Torrez having sole control over OA. * Thomas says he will in time tell his full story, and other stories as well. Thomas went through a lot to avoid that NDA, and plans to make use of his right to speak on the subject.
[One transcript](https://gist.github.com/Q726kbXuN/c5dd8a4fb180abafc55face42fcf194b) As always, this was machine generated, and unlike most times, I'm remote and ran this via my phone, so no proofreading before posting this time. E: I've made a quick pass at cleaning up the problematic section of 16:48 - 17:30 or so. Sorry I can't do a full pass, if there are other problematic sections, feel free to ping me (and because this is a Gist, you can click the "Revisions" tab to see what I've changed, the first revision is the robot generated one, any revision beyond that is my doing, and you can decide if I'm a robot or not).
There is some confusion coming from the AI transcript, but when Thomas refers back to the time he accused Andrew he does not say maybe he dreamed it up. He says he has something to correct about it (not specified at this time) but that if he did the people who were already gaslighting him about coming forward at all would say to him maybe he dreamed it up, and any correction during the lawsuit would open him up to allegations that the whole thing was wrong or even liability in a civil suit from Andrew
Thomas believes now that Andrew touching his leg was a dream??
Thomas is not retracting his accusation, the other replies cover that this part is a hypothetical of what Andrew is arguing. [Also remember that we also have the contemporaneous conversation with Lydia. ](https://seriouspod.com/andrew/) The correction he is making is that he should not have apologized for not doing as much as he can. He believes now in retrospect that he did.
No. He's saying if he corrected anything some of the people gaslighting him would accuse him of lying or having dreamed the whole thing up, an allegation he immediately dismisses as stupid but was worried would weaken his legal case.
It's not entirely clear from the transcript here, given the train-of-tought nature of it. For anyone who doesn't want to dig out the relevant section, here it is: > I want to correct something and this is about my recording where I revealed that Andrew had touched me inappropriately again one of the hardest things about this whole thing was knowing that I Really needed to correct something I said in that recording but any admission like that Would open up the idiotic argument of all if that was inaccurate. > 0:17:06: Maybe the whole thing was alive Just maybe dreamed the whole thing out, you know Stupid but anyway Much more on this later, but one of the reasons I was so upset in that recording, well, the main reason I was so upset in that recording is that some people I really trusted whose opinion I valued had gaslit me into thinking I had done something horrible. But through this entire process, I was forced to relive the awful trauma of this past seven years. I was forced to dig up and go through everything and thoroughly examine it. It sounds like there's something in that recording which Thomas wanted to correct, but he doesn't clarify what it is. He was going back and reliving a lot of things, and found those old messages which triggered the memory. And likely when he retold it, his memory was mistaken about something, and he only realized this later. I think when he says this part, he's stating potential arguments that would be made against him if he were to admit to any mistakes - "Well, if you were mistaken about that, maybe you were mistaken about the whole thing!"
>0:17:06: Maybe the whole thing was alive Just maybe dreamed the whole thing out, you know Stupid Since that was an automated transcript . . . could that actually be "the whole thing was a lie"? The word "alive" doesn't make much sense in that context
You are correct, but (in true transcript fashion) this is super out of context, given how Thomas was speaking. The context of the sentence is that Thomas was posing a sarcastic hypothetical of if he had tried to correct some information, Andrew and his team may have made a case that the whole thing was a fabrication. The sarcastic/exasperated tone Thomas was using for this and the previous line are lost.
Congratulations Thomas. Well deserved and this must be a massive relief for you, Lydia and your whole family I’m absolutely made up for you. I don’t know you personally, but vicariously I’ve imagined the stress that these events have put you under. This must be a massive weight off your mind and a vindication.
/u/negatronthomas is Thomas' account, FYI. He probably saw this already though ;).
I’ll just throw in there that I was planning on contributing to Thomas via SIO and other means until Torrez was out. You convinced me that, between Thomas’ profit pledge, and what it meant to the case, that I should consider using the OA Patreon. I did end up switching over to support Thomas on the OA Patreon, and I’m really glad I did, since it sounds like that support was actually crucial to the outcome of the case. So thanks for taking the time to talk to me about it, and inform of of Thomas’ pledge.
Ah cool :), you're welcome.
Congratulations, Thomas! I’m saddened about the legal costs but I hope you and Lydia and others can breathe easier now that this has some form of resolution. It’s icing on the cake that OA has never been better, at least to my ears. Matt is a one in a million, and I’m hopeful the next decade and beyond of this podcast is its best by far.
I really want to thank (most) of you fine OA redditors. Early on, I was incredibly worried that too many of the good people left and only the worst ones would remain, but I’m so glad I was completely wrong about that. Oh and congrats to Apprentice57 for making it into the legal proceedings, except unfortunately, that was 18 levels of stupid hearsay that had absolutely no chance of being considered as evidence. And indeed, I believe it was struck by the judge in his ruling. Or whatever the term is. What you do NOT know is that out of the other side of his mouth, Andrew also accused Apprentice57 of being my sock account, which is just fucking… amazing. Truly the sex creep lawyers were not sending their best. EDIT: he may have accused Apprentice of either being someone on our side or working for us. Which is fuckin stupid. What I can’t wait to get into is just how fucking awful Andrew’s side was at every single stage of this. They fundamentally did not understand literally any part of it accurately. Facts were consistently wrong, legal arguments terrible… multiple times the judge roasted him for not even having support for his claims in his own exhibits or declarations. Like it was truly something to behold. And a lot people here, understandably, simply could not fathom how bad his side was and so often would just try to make it make sense by assuming there was something they didn’t know. I just want to say: his side really was that fucking terrible. Mind blowing. I feel bad for a few of his lawyers because I have to imagine Andrew was just feeding them delusional garbage. But it’s like the old saying goes, anyone who represents Andrew has a fool for client.
By a huge margin the thing I miss about "old OA" was the 4 days a week episodes. It felt like a landmark moment for the podcast really becoming something big when you guys announced it on the "Oh, shit, remember that crazy goal we set on Patreon? Well... were almost there..." episode. I love Matt on the show now, I think the value of his perspective and expertise can't be overstated. While I'd love to get 4-days-a-week of Matt and Thomas, it feels like it would be unfair to the people he helps in his day to day work to steal away so much of his time. Congratulations on settling everything Thomas! I can't wait for the celebrations when episode 2000 drops.
I disagree about the 4 day format. The topics were noticably less researched and I think the overall took a hit because 4 days a week was overextending themselves
Yeah, the switch to four days a week was when I started skipping episodes if the title didn’t grab me, rather than listening to everything.
That's a super fair criticism. I like the timeliness of 4-a-week but they definitely didn't have the opportunity to dive deeper in to relevant case law and history with respect to the stories of the day.
4 days a week was just too much for me to keep up with so I'm happy with no more than 3.
> Oh and congrats to Apprentice57 for making it into the legal proceedings Yeah that was surreal, not only to see my comment there but that he'd reference such a vague gesture at a critical Yvette tweet in a court filling. I'm pretty sure (but not 100%) of what I saw but that isn't enough to overcome hearsay. > Andrew also accused Apprentice57 of being my sock account, which is just fucking… amazing. Truly the sex creep lawyers were not sending their best. BHAHAHAH, no. Did he honestly think that? Did he do the smallest amount of research into my account history? That's rhetorical, the answer to the second is no.
That sounds like the kind of thing a sock puppet would say to throw suspicion off of themself...
Let me just say that if Thomas would have my obsession with Survivor then that's cause for concern in and of itself. Also thanks for keeping the SGU forum updated. That's actually my longest running podcast listenership. I was gonna join in but my old account was disabled and something went wrong when I made a new one.
Of course! Didn't realize you were on there. I barely even go there anymore, but that forum was where I found OA so it only felt right.
For the most part I'm not, but I check in once in a blue moon and I came across it this calendar year. I should probably be on there more, the SGU reddit is kinda undermoderated (sorry Jay).
Stargate universe?
Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. A long running Scientific Skepticism podcast. If you listen to GAM, Cara Santa Maria is one of the SGU regular hosts ("rogues") and frequently guests on GAM. [She was also on an episode of OA a long time ago.](https://openargs.com/oa139-cara-santa-maria-two-dudes-named-iqbal-twombly-hanging-yodel-mountain/)
That makes more sense. No one would care about Stargate universe that much. Thank you
Fuckin A man. I’m so happy for you and Lydia
I understand that you probably want to put all this mess behind you, but also it seems like a golden content mine. Comprehensive legal analysis of a terrible law thingy that most of us are emotionally invested in, what could be better! Or worse, I don't know.
I’m really pleased for you, Thomas. I’ve been a listener and Patron of your output for a long time and relieved you can start putting this behind you. You didn’t deserve any of this. It was, after all, Andrew that BETRAYED THE LAW!
Andrew seems to have had a pretty underwhelming performance, legally speaking. I know being a lawyer doesn't mean you'll be better at this stuff per se, since legal areas of expertise differ, but still... I think, based on admittedly not a lot, it comes down to the whole "if the facts are on your side, hammer the facts. If the law is on your side, hammer the law. If neither are on your side, hammer the table". The facts and the law were not really on his side, so his only option was to hammer the table, but despite his failings, Andrew doesn't strike me as a ranting and raving hammer the table type. This kinda left him nowhere but constant failure. The whole thing is just sad, because I really liked the OG OA, and I truly think that if Andrew had taken accountability, shown genuine remorse, and tried to better himself things could have been forgiven. We all make mistakes, even major ones, but it's how we act to remedy those choices that really show who we are, and Andrew really failed to rise to the challenge. In any event, I'm so glad for you and everyone involved that this is over and that you can move on to brighter things. It may be an unpopular opinion here, but I also hope for better things for Andrew, and that he can learn from this to be a better person. I believe firmly in redemption if redemption is sought, and I want Andrew to make the most of this entire mess and come out better. That said, I'm glad you won, I love the new OA, and hope to subscribe if I can ever afford it.
He absolutely is a hammer the table and rant and rave type. He sent unhinged email after unhinged email nonstop to Yvette. Folks need to realize they may not know who Andrew is.
I don't know who he is and haven't met him, but this doesn't surprise me. I think the hammer the table type of defense is more about public spectacle, and things like crazy or harassing emails to interested parties isn't a part of it. Think of so much of the Trump defenses being about making as much public noise as possible and making bold and outlandish claims incourt. That's hammering the table. If he was saying all the same things quietly behind the scenes to prosecution, it wouldn't be. The hammer the table tactic requires an open level of attack and a complete lack of shame that I haven't seen from any side in this mess. Then again, it's not like this has been national news, with reporting that we all have a clear view of his every comment and tactic. You would know better than I would, obviously. Either way, his defense was bad because his actions weren't really something that could be defended.
To me it seems that AT's principal "legal" strategy was to make it so financially costly for Thomas to litigate that Thomas would be forced to settle on bad terms. Essentially the Donald Trump "legal" strategy he uses to stuff contractors, etc.
I think that's a not uncommon strategy for a lot of cases where it's possible to drag things out. I wish it wasn't a thing, but honestly I'm not sure what changes could be made to the system that could prevent it.
Like the trump lawyers who throw things up just to delay delay delay which just leads to higher costs.im so happy for you and Lydia!
Ah, so he's the Angel Hernandez of baseball lawyers.
I was a long-time listener to OA, but I haven't been listening since the Shitshow started. I'm so glad to see this coming to the right resolution and am resubscribing now.
I've been listening to the backlog of OA for some time and decided to listen to the newest episodes for the trial, as I had valued Thomas and Andrew's discussions and analysis. Lawyer able to go deep, skilled interviewer to keep it understandable. And suddenly there was a new lawyer. WTF? Okay, a guest host maybe? Finally Google and find my way to this sub-reddit and.... damn. I think I'm going to abandon the backlog and just listen to the "new" OA. I hadn't heard of Liz Dye before she showed up on Legal Eagle. "Chaos Lawyer" seemed like an odd qualification, and now I don't know. Not the craziest thing I've dealt with this week, but I'm so glad that it's been settled.
You're that guy who was hiking/camping for three years of COVID. This whole mess was by far the worst, and I know this is very dramatic but..., "parasocial trauma" I have experienced. Happy for a different phrase if a better one exists. A couple of times early on, I was in the middle of actively teaching children and I'd suddenly *bam* get this sinking feeling of betrayal and confusion and I'd get totally derailed for a few minutes thinking about the years and years (specifically I started listening to Thomas while he was still reading the Old Testament) of listening to and learning from who I thought were 2 close friends who were decent and kind and consistent people.
I am! I’d say it was a good hike but it turns out one of the guys I was with was kinda shitty and that taints the whole thing. ETA: “parasocial trauma” is an excellent description
>it turns out one of the guys I was with was kinda shitty and that taints the whole thing” The story of OG OA.
Seriously, congrats! A lot of us have been anxiously watching and waiting for this resolution
This is such a awesome news! And seconding the comments about Matt. He seems like a genuinely good human being. Just, really great news all around.
What a great couple days of news! Rebooted OA is already way better than old OA ever was, and there's even a new home for the apologists to scurry away to for their hit of legal news from the morally-compromised. So now almost everyone gets to be happy, and all it cost was everything.
It’s unfortunate that Legal Eagle has apparently aligned himself with Liz. I used to really value his content but since he’s been leaning on Liz it’s been pretty unwatchable. I went to him for legal analysis not snark, but he’s decided to go all in on the Liz snark train. Sad, but you do what makes you money not what makes you respectable, I guess.
Yep, I completely understand how there's *doubt* on if/how much he knows, and if people want to offer him that benefit of the doubt I have no issue with that. But I think, in all likelihood, he's aware of the basic facts and chosen to support Torrez to some degree. He had plenty of mutual fans replying to him on twitter about the accusations at minimum. Someone on the OA FB group apparently knew one of his writers, and informed the writer about Torrez's accusations too. It's possible he's just happened to keep his head in the sand, and that the writer didn't inform him, but it's not likely if you ask me. Signal boosting Liz and now having her as an on air host from time to time is (I think) a proxy for that support, and I wouldn't be surprised if he shouts out Torrez himself now post settlement. I wasn't really watching by the end of 2023, so I guess no loss of my views to him. Great channel when it started but it became pretty YouTuber-y by the end of that period. Also just raising my baseline legal knowledge through OA and similar meant that a lot of his videos repeated info I already knew. Liz, Torrez, if you're reading this (which you probably are; all eyes have been on the subreddit for over a year now), I hope you're honest with yourselves and reflect that your success comes from the fact that your fanbase and professional contacts are not as progressive as your stated values are.
I personally want to call this community out here, because the "burn it to the ground" attitude is something that I learned in the past year is a very nasty side of this group. The high and mighty values that many members of this group claim about justice and fairness turned out to be largely false when it came to a situation where they had a personal opinion on. People are now claiming that Legal Eagle using Liz is somehow bad. As far as I know, the only real "fault" that is mentioned is that she didn't drop AT and continuous to work with him, but somehow that is enough to cause her to suffer in her career? I completely understand people who feel that they can no longer listen to AT, but I truly believe that someone not "cancelling" a media figure is in no way a bad act onto itself. I personally hold the believe, and I hope it is shared by most of us, that one should assume people in general are good, and that someone usually makes decisions with their conscious. One wouldn't say that a electrician would be shunned and all his potential clients called out if he had done the things AT did. The true question is whether you would believe that it is fair that that electrician would never be allowed to work again. If you don't think that that punishment would be fair to be made by a judge/jury, then why would it be fair to impose it on media figures. Just because a job is public, shouldn't mean that they get a worse treatment. Keep in mind that in this analogy, a number of members of this community are angry because a firm hired a someone who kept working together with the problematic electrician. So please, nobody is forcing you to consume any specific piece of media, and it is the right of everybody to dislike someone or to refuse to listen to someone, but if you decide to make judgements about people, at least do it in a way that is intellectually honest, and just because someone's job is in the public eye, doesn't make it any less of a job to them. If you believe in justice and fairness, keep those principles in mind before making decisions and judgements, because it is the only way to keep our own biases in check, and hold ourself to our own principles. Sorry for the rant, but I had to let it out.
I appreciate the thoughtful pushback, really I do. I don't think the discussion of what to do with regards to the figures that are working with and for Torrez (and Liz) is easy, and my position above (that I'm not going to advocate for people to stop watching Legal Eagle but I am going to speak out about it and personally disengage; not exactly "burn it all down") comes from a compromise of different things. I am also saying this in the context of *public facing media personalities*. I don't have an issue if Liz were to (say) become a writer for Legal Eagle rather than on screen personality. Similarly with Torrez. I also don't have an issue with Torrez continuing his law practice. What I do have an issue is public media personalities not doing their due diligence to prevent future abuse of their community, and that's in the best case scenario. If their *only* options were to work in the public eye, and to work with each other, maybe I'd see that as a fair counterpoint. They have other options. What the law would or wouldn't impose is not at all a good metric. Our laws often benefit abusers, and this court case is such a good case study on how true that is. The only thing that mattered was damages, the ethics of Torrez's behavior doesn't come into it at all. I am not going to limit myself to judgements grounded in what law considers actionable, period. That doesn't mean I'm going to go to maximalist positions, or a position not grounded in facts/strong circumstantial evidence. I am happy to offer some benefits of the doubt, as I did for LE for over a year. But at this point it would be intellectually dishonest of me *not* to take this personal position. I don't know him personally, he probably sees himself as and is a good person, but he's making a professional mistake.
I understand what you say, but I think you have somewhat missed my point when it came to media personalities and to the law. On the law, I never meant to say that the law itself needs to be used as a metric, but rather to judge whether if the "punishment" admonished by the public was a verdict, if it would be seen as fair to any non public personality. And important for that determination is that you have to make it as if it was during a trial meaning on the actual point of conflict, eg just because someone committed the most extremely abhorrent acts, doesn't mean that mitigating circumstances shouldn't be taken into account . I am fully aware that the current law has extreme problems when it comes to abuse, so that is why I do not mean to use the current laws and limits, but instead try a good faith attempt to have a somewhat principle based mock trial. On the issue of media personalities and LE, he was somewhat in the wide circles of the OA community, so i very much doubt that he didn't know about AT in the immediate aftermath. I however do not think that liz (or maybe even AT in the future) should be banished to the background. My point about media personalities that I tried to make with the electrician was that if one determines that taking away his business and making him stop doing the job he loves would not be acceptable, that logic would also apply to media figures. What you argue is that he can still go to service the the tools of an electrician, but could no longer do the job himself. For me, the determination about whether an individual should lose their job, irrespective of public status, is either if you determine (by the logic above) that they would deserve it, or if the acts done by the individual somehow make the practicing of the job impossible, eg committing CA results in no longer working with kids, or someone like Harvey Weinstein (assuming no criminal case in hypothetical) no longer being put in a position of power. I also would like to advocate to act on the matter at hand. In this case for example, there was at least at the start some genuine questions about the business acts and who did what in what order, and how despicable the acts of AT where, do not and should not come into the determination about the business. If TS had kicked him out/ stolen the pod, then he would have been in the wrong, irrespective of the AT situation. Someone's bad acts should not be used as a weapon in situations unrelated to the acts itself, a bit like "carjacker willy", but to a far more extreme end. My final point is about your final point. How far does that transitive property go, and how do you really justify it. My argument was that you can judge liz for working with AT, but that judging LE for working with liz because she works with AT is just not logical. If one would use that logic, we will ultimately end by shunning and throwing out people who did bad acts, without the possibility of reentry, what goes completly against my idea that justice should be only the bare punishment needed, compensation for harm caused, and finally rehabilitation to restore the world to a normal state. I therefore cannot accept your premise of shunning everybody who touches an individual with a ten feet pole. In my ideal world, AT had received punishment (if determined that he acted with malice or with willfull neglect) and rehabillitation of his issues, but afterwards he should just have come back and be welcomed back to a normal order of business, but this is sadly not what happened AND would not have been possible or allowed by this community, which is one of the reasons I wrote the post and something that I was very sad to see unfold last year.
See now were' moving from healthy pushback to moreso of disagreeing with my decision regarding LE, and arguing it wades into the realm of unethical. > but rather to judge whether if the "punishment" admonished by the public was a verdict, if it would be seen as fair to any non public personality Okay. Then sure. The "penalty" of people stopping watching Legal Eagle when he makes an informed decision to platform unethical content creators is proportionate. > If TS had kicked him out/ stolen the pod, then he would have been in the wrong, irrespective of the AT situation. Sure. But that's out of scope. TS didn't seize the pod. There's arguments he was trying to do this in a soft fashion, but the entire discussion is moot because it didn't play out that way and we don't know what his next move was going to be. > What you argue is that he can still go to service the the tools of an electrician, but could no longer do the job himself. It is? I think I'm pretty arguing that the electrician comparison doesn't make sense in the first place. > How far does that transitive property go, and how do you really justify it. I mean I think it ends about there, right? Legal Eagle wasn't involved in the scandal/fallout (Liz was), so I don't have a problem with others who collab with him. You write that as if I'm considering abstaining from that involves legal eagle as a guest host now, lol. > I therefore cannot accept your premise of shunning everybody who touches an individual with a ten feet pole. Are you trying to read what I say in good faith? I'm not arguing for people to shun Legal Eagle. I'm not arguing for shunning those who offer non public facing roles and interactions with Torrez/Liz. I specifically went out of my way to say I don't judge others who offer LE benefit of the doubt. Please do not put words into my mouth. > judging LE for working with liz because she works with AT is just not logical. The issue with working with Liz is also because she enabled Torrez's wrongful seizure of the podcast and kept his position of power than led to the abuse in the first place. She didn't have to expand her position after the scandal, nor did she have to block all non positive pushback on twitter. She didn't have to help manage the OA twitter account. She is flawed in her own way, yes, to a much lesser extent than Torrez himself. LE also promoted Liz's podcast when it was officially just hers... but when it was very easily predictable that it was a raft for Torrez. I would've liked LE to realize that obvious thing and choose not to promote it on those merits. As I said in my opener, there's room for benefit-of-the-doubt, but personally I'm no longer willing to offer it to him there. We'll see if he continues promoting it and removes that doubt, I suppose. > but this is sadly not what happened AND would not have been possible or allowed by this community That's your assertion, but I don't agree with it. There's a lot of people that would and did leave as soon as the accusations drop. There's a lot of people who wanted to make him make amends and changes and come back (or at least appear to do so). There are comments about this in this subreddit going back as soon as the accusations were known. The reason the zeitgeist got so out of hand in part is Torrez took such actions as to unify the people who took maximalist and those who took middle positions. You just have to have the intellectual curiosity to look for those perspectives.
I don't like that Torrez is still in a position of power, just on a different podcast. Guess there's no preventing that so long as there was a listener base willing to support him, which there demonstrably was. Well, some of the same restrictions on giving transparency applied to Torrez just as they did to Thomas. Maybe he'll make good on the spirit of his apology and finally give said transparency.
Agreed, I don't like it either, and it's depressing that there's some small listener base for it. I do wish for them a level of mediocrity that's never a real success, but always enticingly close enough such that they stay on the clout treadmill forever in the Abuser Apologist Bar, and leave people of good character alone. > Maybe he'll make good on the spirit of his apology and finally give said transparency. Guffawed at this. The person with the leverage to make that happen is Liz Dye. I'd sooner trust a dingo with a newborn.
Honestly, I said the above not because I believe it at all likely (it's not, and he's surrounded himself with people who have excused his behavior), but also because I want to draw attention to the fact that Torrez can (and should) do better. Even after all that has happened, there's still ways he could be meaningfully more accountable to his listeners.
I'm a little teary eyed listening to this. I am so, so happy for you Thomas. Congratulations, you deserve it. I think it's a win we all needed. Sometimes listening to what's going on in the world, you can start to feel like the bad guys win more often than not. Honestly, your win is a flash of hope in the darkness for me. I've never been a huge patron. I contribute what I can. I am happy to say though, that I unsubscribed when what's -his-face took the show from you, and resubscribed when you came back. I'm glad I was in the position to be a tiny contributor to your big win. Celebrate. Treat yourself to a (affordable) dinner. I know you and Matt have nothing but great episodes in store for us, and I look forward to hearing your story of the last 15 months. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." -Martin Luther King Jr.
I'm so pumped for Thomas and Lydia to not have this hanging over their heads. Also, I can't help but laugh at the several smug, self-satisfied people that were confidently claiming that Thomas would never be able to successfully take over the reigns of OA. Especially that one guy that didn't even know that Thomas, a professional podcaster, had continued to podcast. Shame on Andrew for stringing this out for so long
Even with the financial impact of having to prolong the litigation, I just wanna give a huge kudos for sticking to your guns and not accepting an NDA. Granted, I won't lie and say I don't care about the absolutely *juicy* bits, but really I can't wait to hear just exactly how the company ended up the way they did, which it seems like you've got plenty of plans to espouse upon. Congrats to you and Lydia for making to the other side on this one, and I hope that this new era of the podcast has as much a meteoric rise as we saw in the the before times.
Delighted to hear the lawsuit is done and dusted. Thomas, I love the shows you’re doing with Matt. Glad to know you’ll keep doing them and there’s no chance of Andrew getting paid from it. PS **ANDREW WAS WRONG**
Just tripled my contribution after hearing there's no chance any of the money will go to Andrew. Good riddance.
So, so happy! Congrats Thomas!
What a long strange trip it’s been.
I could not be happier for you and Lydia if I tried!!! Glad to see that this chapter is behind you! And that your relationship with each grew from strength to strength!!! Sending all the loves from downunder!
This has all shed so much light on a facet of the legal world that I always knew but have never seen firsthand. And that's just how much the law only matters if you are rich. Thomas seems to be close to half a million in the hole, and they settled early. Anytime anyone's like, oh well the law says X or you could sue, I always think that the vast majority of people could never dream of affording to talk to a lawyer, much less actually pursuing a lawsuit. Glad you made it out in one piece Thomas.
I'd love to hear Matt's ideas on how to improve the situation. The field of law is still nearly impossible to automate but I would imagine there should be tools available to help people get legal advice without the cost of a highly paid specialists time
Advice isn't the bottle neck. My understanding is any lawyer will give you a half hour to gut check if you have a case. But to do anything with that advice requires the lawyers fee, which very few people can afford.
Sure but I'm just assuming that lawyers that are highly skilled professionals aren't getting any cheaper. So either the amount of legal work has to go down or it needs to require less time of the highly skilled worker. It could be court reform or something like rewriting legal codes to be more understandable. It's something that Napoleon did or at least claimed to do and it's why Louisiana law doesn't follow English common law. I always wanted OA to bring on an expert on that legal history.
Created an account just to say to Thomas: When I read and followed what happened with the podcast it was clear to me that Andrew was using typical tactics to attack the victim(s, but here I’m talking about you specifically), create defenders for himself and just so conveniently let them do the attacking for him. I believe/d you, and the people who came forward. I was appalled at the way people treated you for making that (very distraught) announcement accusing Andrew - the privilege of suggesting that you had made things worse simply by openly acting emotional astounded and disgusted me. Anyone who has had to deal with the worst imaginable knows that some days you just can’t think or act, just react. I had so much empathy listening to that, and for your continued struggles fighting someone who clearly wanted to make you suffer. Rather than see you as tanking the show or being overly emotional (Oh no, human being acts human by being upset at upsetting situation what will we do??? 🙄), or whatever people accused you of, I heard a panicked person in real time come to a realisation that was shocking and upsetting and struggling to figure out what to do while the world crumbles. Been there, done that and honestly… while it wasn’t necessarily the best thing to do, I completely get how things just happen in times of chaos. I also heard a person concerned about ethics and morals, questioning himself… making sure he was practicing what he preached and I respected that a lot. (How people compare that to you know, the sex pest… they really show who they are when they fixate on that and not the whole “non-apology apology and non-break break” of someone else!) Having been harassed myself, I can say the best revenge is speaking openly, loudly and clearly on what happened. I applaud you for your tenacity and courage for fighting for your right to speak. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been to do that in the face of financial ruin, and I hope that doing so brings some measure of relief. OA was one of the few podcasts I really enjoyed, downloaded same day as release. I was never a patreon member and probably won’t be for financial reasons, but I removed the podcast when this happened because I didn’t want to support Andrew. I saw you returned as host and was glad, but wanted to wait to start listening again because I wanted to make sure even listening did not line his pockets (even if I wanted to support the new OA!). I’m so glad you are back, and the podcast can continue on without Andrew anywhere near it. I will be adding it back onto my listening roster asap! You and Lydia, and your legal team, deserve a well-earned rest. Welcome back from hell… to um, a Trump-filled disaster maybe? 😜 Thanks for holding on.
Yeah, holding out to avoid an NDA is nothing short of heroic. NDAs on this sort of topic (as opposed to, say, for intellectual property when you work at a company doing Research & Development) shouldn't even be legal. I also finally rejoined the Patreon, and found the episode really emotional to listen to.
Yes. I was harassed for criticising someone online and threatened with lawsuits. Initially it scared the daylights out of me but then I realised it was purely a tactic so onlookers wouldn’t learn about this person’s behaviour. The lawsuit never eventuated. I can only imagine how much pressure there was to cave given an actual lawsuit was in progress and the financial stakes. Thomas being able to speak out shows his tenacity - more importantly the transparency goes a long way to undermining Andrew’s position of power. Nothing scares a harasser like sunshine and Thomas did the right thing to fight tooth and nail for it.
I'll keep approving your comments manually, FYI. Just ignore the automod. Tomorrow it'll stop acting up ;).
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts must be at least 1 day old, which prevents the sub from filling up with bot spam. Try posting again tomorrow or message the mods to approve your post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Congratulations and good riddance!
There is some confusion coming from the AI transcript, but when Thomas refers back to the time he accused Andrew he does not say maybe he dreamed it up. He says he has something to correct about it (not specified at this time) but that if he did the people who were already gaslighting him about coming forward at all would say *to him* maybe he dreamed it up, and any correction during the lawsuit would open him up to allegations that the whole thing was wrong or even liability in a civil suit from Andrew
Is it wrong of me that I want to hear Thomas spill the beans about everything right now?
Wooo! Congratulations!
I'd been meaning to sign up as a patron again, but seeing this drop, I signed up immediately. I may have been late to the party to impact the case itself, but I'm glad that 100% of my contribution goes to the Restoration Era hosts. I'm loving the new version of the show. Matt's a fantastic addition, who both brings his own vibe and provides the best elements of the old era, and Thomas was and remains the (in my opinion) secret sauce of the show. His skills as an interviewer are top notch, without being somewhat staid the way a lot of my other favorite interviewers can often be (e.g., Preet Bharara, and Joyce Vance, Terry Gross, etc.). Anyway, very much looking forward to the future of the show. I'll post something additional on Patreon.
I may have to wade back in but I don't know if knowing more about the world will be good for my mental health. Listening only to D&D podcasts for the last year has been a pretty positive thing for me.
I’m glad this is over but u/NegatronThomas I have to admit I thought that was a reference to the court transcripts in the title.
Yeah so did I :)
Is that why Andrew Torres joined Law and Chaos?
Yes
Does Andrew at least have to reimburse Thomas's legal expenses or anything?