How Attorney-Client Privilege Works

Fool's episodes? Yeah, poor Ben. No. People were very respectful to Ben. They were like, Ben, I really like you, but this is a travesty, all right, So this is a pretty relevant topic. Oh wait, hold on, will you indulge me real quick? Sure? Speaking of Ben, so so just I want to give a shout out real quick. Ben and I worked on a How Stuff Works first ever fiction podcast called The Control Group, and it's out.

The first five episodes are out and maybe by the time this comes out, will be releasing the last five once a week. Um. And it's pretty good. It's set in the sixties, It's it takes place in a mental asylum. Uh, and there's a doctor who is running the show who is under the encouragement of a very shady organization, a secretive, shady organization, starting to really go off the rails and lose his ethics and immorality. It's pretty engrossing. It's a

really engrossing yeah, for sure. It's an engrossing radio drama basically. Yeah. So yeah, if you like our mk Ultra podcast episodes, uh, then this is kind of right up your alley for sure. And it's really really well done. The acting is top notch, music is really great to sound effects are great. Really sucks you in. So go check it out on iTunes the Control Group and um, if you like it, leave a nice review maybe if you want whatever, even if you just go and enjoy it, that's all I'm asking

you to do. Agreed. Okay, thanks for indulging me. Charge. So we're moving on to attorney client privilege, which is something that I knew just about everything about. It turns out, yeah, because there's not that much to it. I mean, there's some nuance here there, but basically everybody knows what it is. Yeah. But here's the thing. There is nuance because our legal system here in the United States and in Canada um are very much based on precedent and legal precedent, and

attorney client privilege. Privilege is not It's not something that was laid out in the Constitution. So it's something we've had to formulate over the years, uh, through precedent on prior cases to kind of figure out all the nuances that you were talking about. That's right, it's just since it comes from English common law, that means it's a very old custom. But since, like you're saying, it's not enshrined in the Constitution, you can't point to and be like,

here are the rules of attorney client privilege. You have to work it out through court cases over the years. Yeah, should we talk about that very first one or the very first one that mattered? Yeah, for sure. And do you remember this story from the Revenge episode we did? Was that where this was okay, Yeah, it did smack

of something that I had heard before. Pretty fascinating, So so tell it to them, all right, So this is seventeen forty three, and prior to this there had been references to an attorney client privilege, but it's all here that only fourteen reported decisions on this predate, Uh, this seventeen forty three K. So it wasn't something trotted out there a lot, but uh Annestlely the and Glessia I would say, anglesey anglese really yeah, I guess you could

pronounce it, and Glessia Huh it's Anestley Jennifer Aniston versus Julio Iglesias. Well, regardless of it's let's just say a v A is a very pivotal trial because it pitted. This is a story of inheritance. When there was a man named Arthur who died and his brother Richard said, you know what I'm due to inherit this estate because my brother didn't have any kids more. But it was very inconvenient. When someone named James showed up and said, no, no, no, I am his long lost son and rightful heir, he

said waw. And that's where the story kicks off. Right. So James, it turns out, was very much telling the truth. Um, he says, not only is this guy a jerk, he knows full well that I'm the rightful heir because he got rid of me when I was a mere twelve year old pup growing up in England. All of a sudden, I found myself kidnapped. Suddenly. This is like um uh Robert Louis Stevenson book, right. So he's kidnapped and sent off to Delaware to live as an addentured servant for

thirteen years. Yeah, which might as well have been Siberia at the time, exactly, I mean still kind of. And he's working it off as a like. He just basically said, this is my fate. So he worked for thirteen years as an addentured servant and worked it off and made his way down to Jamaica at age twenty five, and then made his way back to England to claim as inheritance.

So he shows up and his uncle Richard, who was the Earl of Well and Glessia or angle Sea, one of the two, and um, he said, he said, this guy is a fraud. I'm the rightful heir. So first of all, Richard thinks he got rid of this kid forever. Now, all of a sudden, the kids shows up and he does another even dastardly thing and frames him for murder.

I guess yeah he was. There was this accident that happened and Earl got his attorney, one John Gifford, to kind of go for a murder prosecution even though he knew that the death was an accident. So, like you said, he sort of framed it up in such a way that he could really get rid of this kid now a young adult, and even said in pre trial hearings of his nephew he would give a ten thousand pounds

to have him hanged. And how this all relates back to attorney client privileges is that, like we said, Gifford was his attorney and was sort of in on this thing, and when it all came out, the attorney was the one the only person really that could give testimony that this happened. And uh, the original Uncle Dick said no, no, no, this is attorney client privilege. This is protected, and it would violate that. It into all the way to to uh to court and they said, no, no, no, that's

that's not the case. I'm sorry to tell you. Yeah, because uh, Annesley Um argued that or his lawyer argued that Um these other things, the kidnapping that the lawyer helped arrange them, the statement about how we would have him hanged for ten thousand pounds, that had nothing to do with the inheritance, and what we were talking about here was the inheritance, and thus that shouldn't be protected

communication between the client and his attorney. And the court said, you know what, I don't even care what you just said. This story is so bonkers and that guy is so patently evil. I'm going to rule in favor of you. And the first ruling, the first major clear concise ruling

on attorney client privilege, was registered in seventeen forty three. Right, So the whole idea behind any attorney client privilege is to give you the assurance as a client that you can speak to your attorney in private, and that's very key, as we will find out later, in private without fear that they will then use that information against you somehow, or that that information can be extracted from them under

threat of say jail time or something. Yeah, exactly. And it's um It's defined pretty well in this other article you sent. It's where legal advice of any kind it's sought from a professional legal advisor uh in his or her capacity. As such, the communications relating to that purpose made in confidence by the client are at his or her instance, permanently protected from disclosure by the client or by the legal advisor, except the protection be waived. Yeah,

and that's I mean, that's a pretty big mouthful. But what it's basically saying is that if you commit a crime or committed tort, which is basically a civil a civil act against somebody that they can sue you for if you if you commit either one of those, and you say, oh god, I need a lawyer, and you go to a lawyer and say a I want you to be my lawyer, and the lawyer says, okay, go ahead, and you start talking, say you tell them everything. You

admit to guilt, You admit to everything. It doesn't matter what you've admitted to. That that speech, that communication, that conversation is to stay between you and your lawyer forever, even after your death. They've ruled, as we'll see, and that you, the client, are the only person who can waive that right, that privilege of that communication, so that your lawyer has to take it to their grave even after you're dead, as long as you say I as

long as you never wave that right. Yeah, and that's what you just said, would satisfy one of the four basic elements necessary here, which is one. It was a communication, uh too, it was made between the privileged persons, that is you and the attorney. It was made in confidence. And this one's really important. It's for the purpose of seeking or obtaining a legal assistance. So it's you can't It doesn't count if you go to your pal who's

a lawyer and ask them for legal advice. If you're not retaining them for their services, that's a big one. That's a really big one. Even if you do go to a pal and retain them as a lawyer officially, or even if your lawyer is not your pal and you retain them as a lawyer. If you say I committed this crime, I need your help to cover it up,

that's not protected either. Correct. You also can't go to your lawyer and say, um, hey, i've been thinking that we could come up with a pretty great real estate scam with your lawyering skills and my my scamming skills. Let's come up with something that would not be protected either because it's a crime. It's you're planning a crime. Either planning a crime or covering up a crime. You just lost your your privilege, your attorney client privilege. All right,

should we take a break? I think so that's a good little overview, and we'll come back and talk about all the ins and outs right after this. Alright, Chuck, so we're back. We're talking about some ins and outs, yeah, and and and exceptions. And you you mentioned one that you would probably that would probably fall under the crime fraud exception. Uh. And again that's the in our own article. The thing they reference here is like, hey, let's set up a phony company UM as a front. Can you

help me do that as an attorney? Right, then there is obviously no protection there attorney client privilege, right, or I want you to go make this bribe to an elected official or whatever. It doesn't matter what it is. If it's if it's on the law books as a crime, you're you just lost your privilege. Yeah. And another way it can get gray too is if UM lawyers do a lot of things for people, it's not always providing legal counsel. So this is where it can get a

little little hinky on both sides. You can have a communicative act, but uh, as they say in our article,

business is business and the laws the law. Right. You know, it's only pertaining to legal matters, not if your attorney is doing some sort of business deal for you, right, And that really comes in play more for corporate law, which is they're really big into attorney client privilege because they're frequently letting their clients or their attorney in on um tax evasion, UM, maybe selling knowingly selling tainted products, or even like on the more innocent end of the

spectrum like trade secrets UM, intellectual property secrets there, and a business attorney will have a lot of knowledge about their come any or their clients business that you just don't want them going and spilling the beans, even in open court. Right, So that but that's where you want it. You want that very much if you're a company with

your corporate lawyer. But in the same time, as far as the courts have said over the years, that's very very murky because what constitutes legal advice what constitutes business advice. Sometimes it's clear, you know, like what's our what is our legal implication for this tax evasion that we just found out our accounting department did that would be protected not um uh, I don't know. Help us, help us figure out some ways to evade our taxes or even

even beyond that, even legal ways. Help us figure out some legal ways to evade our taxes that might not cut muster because that's more business than law. You could make an argument, yeah, and and likely like I said earlier, it can get super gray as too far as far as whether or not you have obtained the services of an attorney, because this can come about in a lot

of ways. Uh, Like if you have to you're trying to prove this in court, you can bring an engagement letter, um, some sort of contract that you've signed the outlines fees, or just the relationship. It can be an oral agreement, UM, as long as it's you know, both sides are acknowledging that it could be that they have appeared for you in court. Um, like you you know you don't go to court that first day, Like your attorney goes on your behalf and like file some something for you in court,

some sort of document. Then that is an official expressed acknowledgement. So there are all kinds of ways that you can have an attorney officially represent you. But it has to go beyond just sitting in a room and saying like I could use a little advice, like you have to agree that you're engaging one another, right, um, So are non legal legal advice to you. That is not legal advice in any way, shape or form. Is if you ever hire a lawyer, doesn't matter what kind of lawyer

it is. Before you tell them anything, say I would like to take you on as my lawyer. Will you take me on as your client? And if they say yes, everything after that is now privileged as long as you're not planning a crime, right yes, And you'll know that happens because they start a little time or on their desk, little dollar bill clinks. But even even without um an express say like an engagement letter, or even them expressly

saying yes, I'm your lawyer. UM, I think courts have kind of found over the years that there are certain things that a person could reasonably expect that the the lawyer has agreed to represent them. Right Like, if you go to a lawyer that you've used before, UM, and but you aren't currently engaged with, and they start doling out legal advice because you told them your problem, the a court would probably find that you had an attorney

client relationship and therefore there is attorney client privilege. UM. If they quote you fees and then follow up with some advice, I same thing. It's more just like the client can't unilaterally say we had an attorney client relationship. So this is protected that there has to be some sort of sign or signal from the lawyer as well

that that there's a relationship there. Yeah, And speaking of signs or signals, uh, apparently it doesn't even have to be like a verbal communication that like you could look at your attorney and say like, well, you can ask him a question and they could just sort of give you a wink and tap their nose and that could be used in court. You know. They don't have to expressly say something out loud even no, that can't be used in court. That's protected. Yeah, that's what That's what

I mean. I mean that would come up, but it doesn't have to. Yeah, I think I just confused everybody. But but yeah, you don't even have to be talking. Like if if they say did you kill that person? And you nod, that's protected community exactly, you know, um or. I think they've even found that like a um a sigh islens like a complete silence has protected communication too, because you're not you're not denying things left unsaid pretty much. Yeah,

because if somebody's like, did you kill that person? And you didn't. You're gonna say, hell, no, I didn't kill that person. Get me out of this. If you're just completely silent, I think a reasonable person might take that as an ambition of guilt. But it's still a protected communication between you and your lawyer. Should we talk about

people versus Meredith. I think so people v. Meredith. So this was in California nineteen seventy six and a man named Michael Meredith convinced his friend Frank Scott to uh commit a crime, which was let's jump this guy, Mr David Wade. Uh. They ended up shooting and killing him. I don't know if that was the original intent, but that's what happened. They ran for it, they got arrested,

found and arrested, and then they were in jail. So Scott's appointed counsel was one Mr James Shank, and he went by to talk and they were kind of it chatting around, and uh, Scott said something about a wallet. He was like, yeah, we got the wallet from the victim. We split the money up and put it in a trash can. The lawyer then sends an investigator and actually found that wallet and took it and gave it to

the cops. So obviously this was a key piece of evidence that ended up um well, I mean it ended up backfiring because his client rightfully went to prison, right but Schenk was subpoenaed and said, you're going to be found in contempt of court unless you admit like how this thing went down and how you got this wallet. And the whole key here is if he had never went and got the wallet, then it still would have been attorney client privilege. Yeah, because all he did was

received information in confidence from his client. It was when he basically broke through into the real world and manipulated evidence, that's when all that just changed everything and apparently broke the broke the veil or the privilege of that communication. Well, yeah, which is rightfully so because the courts I believe this one. Yeah. I went all the way to the California Supreme Court. Uh, they ruled rightfully that you can't do this because all

this is gonna do we allowed it. It would incentivize defense attorneys to go out and like try and find evidence right and collect it, and you don't want attorneys doing that, yeah, because once they collected it, it would enter the veil of privacy. And would be protected, and you couldn't. You could never discover it. Um. Similarly, though, and I think I agree with you. I think that that's just logical and sensible, Like you can't you can't

allow attorneys to go do that kind of thing. Um. Similarly, just because you communicated a fact doesn't mean that the fact itself is protected from discovery, just that your communication of that fact to your lawyer was protected. So if there's other ways to find out that you did something, and this seems just boneheadedly, I've yes, but apparently it was worth spelling out and at least one of these articles.

If you said, yes, I killed that person, your lawyer can't tell anybody you said that to them, But if you said that to your wife, well, and your co worker, your coworker can go can go testify against you. So it's not like the fact that you have admitted that you killed that person is protected. It's that the communication between you and your lawyer about that fact is what's protected. Right,

So if it's otherwise discoverable, then it's fair game. Yeah, It's not like you can enshrine a fact with your lawyer and then it belongs to them and them only and the rest of the world can never learn of it legally speaking. That's good point. It doesn't make any sense, but I guess it was worth working out. Uh, you want to take a break, I think we shall. All right, we'll go back and talk about this extending beyond the grave, all right, Chuck. So, um, you have a relationship with

your attorney. Your attorney is like ten years old at the time you hire him, and you're seventy, so you pass on before your lawyer. Well, it turns out that something comes up later on and somebody wants info from your lawyer, private info that you gave them. Your lawyer says, no way, Jose, this is covered by attorney client privilege. That is true. Yeah, because that happened very famously with Vincent Foster, who us most people know was a big h He worked for the Clintons in Arkansas. He was

an attorney. He was one of their close attorneys, personal attorneys. I think, yeah. So, uh, he ended up killing himself. And if you if you have on your tinfoil hat or if you go to these conspiracy websites, then h then you firmly believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered this man with their with their parents. If you're a reasonable human, you know that he fell into clinical depression.

And every single investigator an investigative unit, and there were quite a few, including one Kinneth Star went out and said, yes, he definitely committed suicide. Um, all the evidence was there. So I feel like that's a spectrum you could you could be somewhere on that spectrum between those two beliefs. Oh what between thinking he killed himself and was murdered. Yeah, so he was obviously involved in the infamous Whitewater real

estate deal. And when Kenneth Starr was investigating this stuff, he tried to get his hands on notes created by Foster's lawyer, and the lawyer said, no attorney client privilege, even though this man is dead, And it went all the way to the Supreme Court and they ruled six to three that it must be honored even after the grave. Yeah. I was really surprised that that was as recent as it was. I thought that that would have been a

really old case that came up long ago. But yeah, that was from the nineties, so that one was established in um, well the nineties. I don't see when the actual case or when the Supreme Court ruled on it um. But that was that was one thing that was tested in court. There was another one UM that had to

do with like employees giving testimony for their company. For a long time, it was if you hired, if you were a director level or a m an executive level person in a company and you were talking to corporate council, whatever communication was being made was protected. But then cases started to come up, like what if somebody from accounting was talking to corporate council about that case? Like is

that for tected and um. For a long time there was this test called the control group test appropriately which was basically, just are you one of the people who is in a position to take the advice of legal counsel and either run with it or decide not to do with that? Are you like pretty high up in the company. And if you weren't, then that speech wasn't protected.

But then over time they decided that no. One of the reasons why we have this privilege is that we want lawyers to be fully briefed on the facts of the case so that they can figure out the best defense or the best legal route to resolving this thing um. And if they're not fully informed. Then we're kind of hamstringing our attorneys. So we want them to know everything, and they won't know everything unless people feel comfortable telling

them everything. Hence the attorney client privilege. Well, they said that extends to employees as well, because employees sometimes have information that members of that control group won't have. And as long as they're talking about something that directly reflects their job and the case at hand to that council, that would be considered protected by the by the attorney client privilege. That was the up John ruling I believe. Yeah. And just this year, um, it's been making a lot

of headlines because of the Mueller investigation. When Trump's personal attorney, or one of his personal attorneys, one Michael Cohen, had his office rated in April this year into two thousand eighteen, and the FBI sees all sorts of documents looking for evidence of bank fraud, came back that it was part of the Mueller investigation, and Trump starts tweeting about how attorney client privilege is dead. Uh, And the attorney that was quoted in this article said, no, it's not dead

at all. This is very typical. What's going on is uh? There's a judge that his UH in the Cohen cases, appointed what they call a taint team, one of the more unfortunate unfortunately named teams UH. And what they do this is a third party what they call an arms length group of qualified people, so they're not involved with with anyone in this investigation. And they go through all the evidence gathered and say what's pertinent to the case,

what's not pertinent, and here's the pertinent stuff. It's not like we're just trying to release everything ever said between these two men right there, and they they are. They take all the stuff they saw that didn't relate to the case to their grave. So it is a form and extension of attorney client privilege. Yeah, and especially in the in the Cohen case, this UH. This attorney goes on to say, because Cohen was performing little to know actual legal work for Trump, UM, not much of what

was seized in the raid would be protected anyway. So that's what this attorney says, that's his expert opinion. So can't you see like one member of the taint team at the bar being like the snow it it means deterrek I quit saying that it's really important and vital Oh that's good stuff. So we should talk about another famous recent case of attorney client privilege or attorney client privilege being violated. Actually with the Jodi Arias case. Yeah, I don't know a whole lot about this one except

that um, she murdered someone right, yes, in cold blood. UM. From what I read most recently, one of the alternate jurors believes that she killed her ex boyfriend because he was breaking up with her and she wanted to be the last person he had sex with or the only person he had sex with her the last one of

the two. UM went off the rails, stabbed him like twenty nine times, cut his throat, shot him in the head, and just left him for dead and ran off to California and was caught within like a week or so of his body being discovered. So she UM. She mounted a defense that he was a pedophile, he abused her, UM, and that he was in the act of physically abusing her when she fought back and snapped and killed him.

Apparently that that was all just completely made up. That he wasn't a pedophile, he wasn't an abuser, and he was just trying to break up with her. That's the way it stands now. And she was convicted of I think premeditated murder, initially sentenced to death, a mistrial was declared and she ended up with life without the possibility of parole. So that's where it stands now. She um publicly criticized her public defender, a guy named Kirk Nermi

and Um over the years. Kirk kind of put up with it and then was diagnosed with cancer and said, to hell with it, I'm writing to tell all book. That's what he says. He says that he was he had a bit of an epiphany, a reversal of his his life in that cancer diagnosis, and said, I might be dead. I can't let her be the only person telling the side. The side of the story is he's saying like a canary in this book. Oh yeah, man. He he revealed stuff that didn't come out at trial.

He he gave his own personal assessment of her guilt that she was definitely guilty, talked about how her mother lying on the stand for her was laughable. Um, just all sorts of stuff just ripped apart their attorney client privilege. And so as a result, she's suing him big time. So that's still in the middle of I mean, this hasn't been decided, right, not as far as I know. I think the article I read was from two thousand and eighteen, so I don't think it's been decided yet.

I think he and he's defending himself saying no, when she gave public interviews and talked about our private attorney client conversation, she revoked privilege. She weighed her privilege in doing so, and so I'm free to tell anybody anything about it. So the California Bar, the Arizona Bar, I think disbarred him. He agreed to disbardment without admitting misconduct. And he's like a life coach or a professional coach for lawyers. Interesting, Yeah, it is very interesting. Um, the

whole thing is super interesting. Her cases just gut wrenching and the the this this new piece of it. He basically hates her, hates her. He says that he was forced into the smear campaign as a defense, that he didn't want to have anything to do. He just hates her guts and even her defense team said that that he's developed some bizarre hatred of her. And he he said in this quote in this Reuter's article that um he was he was standing up to years of abuse

from her, So it's like a deep seated hatred. Um one way or another, they ruined each other's lives. I think she blames him for botching her defense. He blames her apparently for a whole whole slate of stuff. So so this will probably be another precedent center. Huh, I would guess so. But it's a it's a civil so yeah, I could still set president. But yeah, the fact that he was disbarred that doesn't bode well for him. But I have the feeling he's like, I'm dying of cancer,

so what ofs Yeah, screw it. So that's attorney client privilege. I don't think we missed anything, did we? I don't think so. There are probably little nitpicky things here and there. It is, Uh, there are some definitely some gray areas, but it's been shaped and reformed over the years. Imagine will continue to be someone. Hey, one more thing I want to say is um, I read and this is kind of apropope, but not really. I read an article

probably about six months ago, maybe a little longer. It was by a lawyer, you know how, like lawyers will write like blog posts or articles or stuff like their clients is on general stuff. This one lawyer wrote one about how if you ever talked to the FBI without a lawyer, you are an idiot. And he put it like that, but no, he makes this really great case for why most people, especially innocent people, would would think I don't need a lawyer. And he said everyone needs

a lawyer when they're talking to the FBI. And he laid out this really exquisite case, multiple point case why to where by the end of it you're like, oh, yeah, you need a lawyer if you're talking to the FBI. It's pretty pretty amazing stuff. He's like, you're not qualified to talk to the FBI. A lawyer can make you qualified. You can't go in there and expect to be qualified.

It was really fascinating. I don't remember who wrote it, but I think if you search something like if you don't have a lawyer and speak to the FBI, you're an idiot, something along those lines. It was fascinating. Just call FED Protect Josh will pat you through for the people. Ah, you got anything else? Nope? Okay, Well, if you want to know more about attorney client privilege, you can type that word in the search part how stuff works. And since I said privilege, it's time for a listener mail.

I do have one more thing to say without getting too much on a soapbox. I hope people take the time, like to understand something like attorney client privilege, because when the president is tweeting out things and all exclamation points like attorney client privilege is dead, I think a lot of people believe that to be true when they don't even really understand the true legal sense of what this means.

You know. Yeah, I totally agree with you, man. It's just like it's misinformation that people think like a tweet is means well, that's a fact, you know, and it's not. It's a tweet, Yeah, something typed out on a phone like do better? People with fat fingers sometimes too. Alright, So moving on, I'm gonna call this Mercury Bobcat. Yeah. Hey, guys, been listening for about a year and I just listened to the Ford Pinto death Trap episode. To put this timeline into context. I was born in This is what

makes this story perfect. If you ask me, Uh, when I was a kid, my family had a powder blue Mercury Bobcat sister card to the Pinto. Like he said, my dad sold the car and bought it back eight years later, just before my sixteenth birthday. And I drove this car for two years in high school, eventually selling it to buy a vehicle compatible with highway travel because a Bobcat could not top ninety kilometers per hour, which is what I don't even know something like that. Well,

I knew the Pinto was generally regarded as unsafe. I somehow did not know the extent of the carnage until listening to the episode that you guys did, And after listening, I can't believe my parents ever allowed me to get behind the wheel of this car, although mine was a seventy eight, so maybe that time they had faith in the upgraded flaming death bolts. It's been about seven years and this dude, he was born in ninety three. He

was driving this old car around well after its prime. Yeah, he would have been driving it in the two thousand's Like that's great. Yeah, it was like me. I had a sixty eight Beatle when I was in the eighties and everyone just thought I was weird with the ankle burner. Yep. Yeah, it's been about seven years since I'll let the car go, and now twenty four my friends and I missed the car so much. I frequently search the Canadian version of Craigslist, uh called KEG, hoping to buy it back. So that's

made up. I love this guy. That guy just he just said some code word that we just said on air. The Bobcat never went up in flames, but it did burn. We did burn it up in it a few times. I hear you man, and this can't know what you mean. This is Owen from Nova Scotia, and uh, I think that's pretty great. And I hope you get to buy that car back. Dude, Yeah, good luck in your quests Owen. Anybody out there in s y s k Land, if you know where Owen's Bobcat is, help him out. Let

us know. We'll connect to same with my sixty eight beetle. Oh that'd be something. I'd like to buy that thing back. Well, if you guys know the vin number, just shout at out you and knowing. Okay, agreed. If you want to get in touch with me and Chuck, you can hang out with us at our home on the web. Stuff you should know dot com and there you will find links to all of our many myriad social media sites.

And in the meantime, while you're doing that, if you want to dash off an email, you can send that thing to Stuff podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more on this and thousands of other topics. Is that how stuff works dot com.