Episode 26: Fed Time


Jessa: Happy Holidays, guys. This is Jessa Nicholson Goetz and I am joined not by Nick Gansner today, but by my other business partner, Nate Otis. He has tried valiantly to avoid doing this exact thing, I think. But he is here, bringing you extra holiday episodes with me. I have a little bit of housekeeping. Oh. In case you were wondering, this is the podcast Getting Off. Failed to introduce ourselves, but that’s okay. Little bit of housekeeping in the continuing goal to promote other cool true crime community podcasts. I want to give a shout out to the folks over at CSI: Reality Check. They are actual forensic people, so people who know shit about science.


Nate: They’re real people.


Jessa: They’re real people that break down scenes or episodes of CSI, the Las Vegas edition. I don’t watch any of the CSI’s, so.


Nate: Never seen a single episode.


Jessa: So I don’t know if LL Cool J is there or not.


Nate: We can only hope.


Jessa: But they basically watch it and say, like, “Yeah. This is total crap” or “This was pretty legit”. So for true crime junkies, for people who like learning about, if you guys stuck with us through eight episodes of head trauma and NGI, this is definitely a podcast that you would think was interesting and especially, if you are a CSI watcher. It’s also quite interesting to listen to, if you’re not a CSI watcher. They use the clips in a really entertaining way. So I would tell you, check them out. CSI: Reality Check. They’ve got an Instagram. I’m sure they have a Twitter. Yeah. That’s my true crime pod shout out. So Nate. You work with us.


Nate: That, I do.


Jessa: Tell everybody who you are.


Nate: Well. I am the mystery third partner in this law firm. My name is Nate Otis. I am honored to be on the podcast. As Jessa said, I have essentially run and hid every time this topic comes up. But she has now officially roped me in, and here I am. Don’t fear. Gansner will be back soon. For the moment, I’m stepping in. You’ll have to figure out what my verbal tics are so you can make fun of me.


Jessa: I don’t think you have any.


Nate: Probably, I do.


Jessa: So I’m gonna tell a story about when you got hired here as an associate. So Nate was a prosecutor for, like, five minutes. Apparently, I only like to work with former prosecutors. And he was assigned to a branch where the clerk is really a funny, she’s just a fun woman to talk to. I had offered Nate the job. He had accepted the job. And she kind of called me up to the side and said “Hey. Do you think you’re gonna be okay working with Nate?” And I was sort of like “Why? Does this guy suck? Is he a douchebag? He seems cool. What’s the problem here?” And she’s, like “Well, you know. You’re really quirky. And Nate is not.”


Nate: I’m so quirky.


Jessa: He’s like, totally quirky.


Nate: I could not be more offended by somebody describing me that way.


Jessa: So I, like, let that sort of swim around in my head for the four-block walk back to my office. And then immediately, started to remove the giant bean bag chair in the storage closet that I often read discovery on during days that I didn’t feel like sitting upright and being a human because obviously, you can’t have a giant bean bag chair with somebody who’s not quirky.


Nate: And the moral of this story is, three months later when she finally got the courage of telling me this story, I’ve been angry about the lack of bean bag chairs ever since. I thought you were gonna tell the story about how you stood me up when you were supposed to be offering me the job.


Jessa: I totally didn’t stand you up. That’s not what happened. That’s false.


Nate: Different story for a different time, maybe.


Jessa: Nate claims he sent me an email, asking to meet somewhere. I never received any such email.


Nate: I think I re-forwarded the email to you.


Jessa: That doesn’t mean I saw it.


Nate: Anyway. I’m here. I’m still here. If I wasn’t quirky before, I feel like I’ve probably developed some quirks.


Jessa: Nate’s wife regularly tells him to stop talking like he’s at the office.


Nate: She just told me that yesterday, actually.


Jessa: Were you saying “literally”?


Nate: No. I think I was saying “um” and she goes “You’re talking like Jessa again. Quit it.” Which, I feel like, I used to say, I feel like “um” was something you may have picked up from me, but who’s counting.


Jessa: I don’t know. Who knows.


Nate: We’ll have to get Amber on here one of these days.


Jessa: Amber can come talk about writing laws.


Nate: Team up. Yeah. That’s right.


Jessa: Amber works for the legislature. So the reason that I asked Nate to come on. This is another little quickie that we’re doing. And some of you guys on the Facebook page and via email have been asking me questions about the federal system, and I don’t practice in federal court. So while I’ve seen movies, and have walked by it, I don’t go there. And so I’d feel better about having those questions directed to somebody who does go there. And that is Nate.


Nate: That’s true. I guess, as a disclaimer: I don’t claim to be an expert in the practice of federal law. I did spend some time clerking for a federal judge and I get there occasionally. More often these days. But I still do probably, primarily, state court practice, like you and Nick. But I do, I know enough just to be dangerous. We’ll put it that way. I’ll take my status and questions and hopefully I don’t give you too much disinformation.


Jessa: So one question that we got is why are federal sentences so different from state court sentences? That somebody can commit the same crime and I think.. I assume, without knowing, that this listener was talking specifically about drug related offences because usually the state court sentences there are particularly shorter. So.


Nate: So that’s a simple question with a complicated answer. So I will try not to talk for the next 30 minutes. I guess, to start with, I think. There goes my cell phone.


Jessa: It’s fine.


Nate: Fucking rookie over here.


Jessa: I’m totally leaving this in. I’m not cleaning that up for you.


Nate: That’s good. So for starters, I think one important thing to point out is it’s not as simple to just say federal versus state court sentences because every state has slightly different sentencing schemes. The majority of states, as far as I know, definitely Wisconsin, do not use sentencing guidelines like the federal system does. Although, for example, our sister state, directly to the west, Minnesota, does. So I guess what I’ll say is, compared to Wisconsin and I think other states that sentence like we do, there’s a huge difference. And this really, at least in federal court, is often what drives all the action, is trying to figure out what the sentence is likely to be. So let me back up. The way that federal sentences work is that there’s something called the United States Sentencing Guidelines. These are passed, essentially, by the sentencing commission, which is an administrative agency appointed by the legislature. And they have sort of a numeric value that they will attach to every offence. What you end up with is a guideline range that a judge is supposed to use up until 2004 or 05. It was actually mandatory that they sentence you within that range.


Jessa: That was a Wisconsin case that changed that.


Nate: That’s true. That was Booker. So and, what’s interesting about that is, I’m sure many of you know Dean Strang for his more recent fame of Making A Murderer, a homicide which he valiantly represented Steven Avery.


Jessa: Is the microphone making you nervous?


Nate: It might be. He valiantly represented Steven Avery along with Jerry, but, you know. I always laugh about it because he’s getting famous for a homicide he lost, when really, the guy probably represented somebody in the most important, at least federal criminal case in the last 20 years. Booker. So it changed the sentencing guidelines from mandatory to advisory. Point being is judges now have the ability to sentence above or below those, if they believe it’s appropriate based on certain sentencing factors. Many judges, particularly judges that were around pre-Booker, still view those as, if not mandatory, presumptively mandatory, despite the fact that the Supreme Court said they really shouldn’t. But. So that is the starting point for any sentence. And the reason that you’re gonna get, generally speaking, much higher sentences in federal court, or at least one of the reasons is those guidelines tend to be very high. So let’s just take a typical drug case for example. You have somebody who is caught with a series of controlled purchases. Let’s say they have him on tape doing five purchases. The overall weight..


Jessa: So they aggregate the weight.


Nate: Right. So the overall weight of these five purchases might be a couple of grams. And if you’re dealing with that in state court, what you’re gonna do is you’re gonna plead to one or two of those, they’re probably gonna dismiss the rest of them. And you’re gonna have an argument that largely centers on those five controlled purchases. Maybe you’re looking at a couple of years. It can be higher or lower depending on the person’s criminal history. If you’re in federal court, the first thing they’re going to do is talk to the CI’s who made those sales and say “How often were you buying from this person?” And inevitably, that CI is going to probably try to make themselves make them seem as important as they can so they can get the maximum benefit out of their cooperation.


Jessa: And just for those of you that don’t know, CI is confidential informant.


Nate: Bingo. Thanks. And, so they’re gonna say “I was buying two grams from this person. We only got five of these controlled purchases but I was doing that every day for a year”. They’re going to aggregate that weight and that is the weight they’re gonna use to calculate the base offence level. Then they’re gonna add any number of enhancers. If there was a firearm found anywhere near the offence, they’re gonna add some points. If they view this person as a higher up in a distribution chain, they might add some points. There's a way you can get points reduced from your base offence level, as well. If you enter a plea, that’ll actually knock off up to three points. So you calculate that final offence level and then they look at your criminal history category, which is somewhere between 1 and 6. That shakes out to a final sentencing range, and that’s what the judge is looking at.


Jessa: So you said something that I actually want to talk a little bit about. Everybody has the right to a trial, whether they’re in federal court or state court, right?


Nate: As long as we still have the constitution.


Jessa: As long as we still have the constitution. How come it’s okay in federal court to essentially punish someone for having a trial because they failed to plead guilty?


Nate: Well, that’s a great question, Jessa. I’m glad you asked.


Jessa: Do you have opinions about that, Nate?


Nate: It’s one that probably every one of my clients asks me about. And the, I guess, best way to answer that question, and this isn’t a good answer, is “Well, Jessa. They’re not getting punished for exercising their right to a trial. They’re just not getting a benefit for timely acceptance of responsibility and for relieving the government from the strenuous duty of proving the case that they’ve charged”.


Jessa: Sure. It’s kind of like when you take a subsidy away from somebody. “We’re not punishing you. All the shit that you have learned to rely on, that’s gone now. I don’t take it personally. It’s fine.”


Nate: And, I mean. I think for those of us who practice regularly even in state court, I think you sort of grow used to this. I think you would agree with me while we can’t quantify state court, we generally refer to it as a trial tax, right?


Jessa: Yeah.


Nate: We tell people if you go to trial and lose, you are going to, you are very likely to get a lengthier sentence.


Jessa: Particularly if you testify and the jury rejects your testimony.


Nate: Well, and it’s interesting that you bring that up because if the judge finds that you committed perjury throughout the scope of a federal case, that’s actually a plus two. So you could fail to get your minus three points, and then on top of that, add on a plus two. It could cost you up to five points on your offence level scale.


Jessa: That’s like a one step forward, five steps back sort of. It’s just not a good..


Nate: No. But it is. The one thing that you get to do as an attorney is you can literally go to your client and say “Look. If we go to trial and lose, here’s what your offence level’s going to be. Here’s what your sentencing range is going to be. 76-90 months or something like that. If we plead, you’re looking at 60-72.” You can quantify what that difference is.


Jessa: Whereas in state court, a lot of the times, it’s “Well, alright, snitch. If you do substantially cooperate, you’ll be told by a prosecutor that they’ll give some consideration to that or serious consideration to that.” I mean, on the far end of that spectrum is an immunity agreement. But they’ll say “We’ll give you some credit for that” but you don’t have that concrete of a difference to hand a client. You can say “Look. It’s five years or 10.”


Nate: You know that sometimes, the only argument you have when you walk in to a sentencing hearing or one of the few is “Look. My client did this bad thing. But they’re here. They’ve accepted responsibility.” And that’s hopefully not the only drum you have to hammer, but it might be. In federal court, you can still do that but you’re literally, you have quantification of what you’re getting out of that deal. I don’t know that that’s a good thing. But it is a thing.


Jessa: Can you talk, this is my question. Can you talk a little bit about why you go to prison for so much longer if you have the same amount of crack cocaine if you have powder cocaine?


Nate: Well. There’s actually. There’s so much on this if you actually cared to know a well-researched answer, you could find it. There is an interesting history to this. So it was, until, I think, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 or ‘11, that the ratio used in federal court to quantify your base offence level for crack versus powder cocaine was 100 to 1. So if I have one gram of cocaine versus one gram of a crack, you’re literally punished at a rate, or at least your offence level is calculated at a rate of 100 times greater, which is fucking crazy.


Jessa: I mean, that seems absurd.


Nate: It’s completely crazy. Now this came out of sort of the crack epidemic of the 80’s, which dove tailed with, you know, the inner cities crime rates spiking and basically, I think people being afraid of black people.


Jessa: Not so hot take. Nancy Reagan did not like the black people.


Nate: That’s what it was. It was a somewhat lightly shrouded racist policy.


Jessa: Which is basically the invention of every drug law we have in the US.


Nate: Right. They’re all, in probably some respect. But this one just, like..


Jessa: This one was just like, “Fuck you. I’m doubling down on racism”.


Nate: Straight out there. And. You know. The purported justifications were that crack’s more dangerous, that it’s more potent, that it was more addictive. There was more likely to be crime associated with it. And it’s interesting because the sentencing commission.. I should also note. It’s not only that the sentencing guidelines were higher for crack offences, but also the mandatory minimum sentences, we’re using that same ration. And that’s where you really wind up with, and still do wind up with some crazy, just completely crazy disproportionate sentences because it really didn’t take much in order for someone to get a 5, 10, or 20 year mandatory minimum sentence. But in any event, many of the purported reasons for that disparity really weren’t even supported by the sentencing commission, whose job it was to research this and make recommendations to congress.


Jessa: Wasn’t the idea behind the sentencing guidelines in the first place that we were in really, like, in rural Alabama, they were handing down much harsher sentences than in New York City or the federal districts that go with those two places. And people actually were seeking to reduce the total set. Am I right about that? That it was intended to help and it’s totally..


Nate: Well. What it was intended for, you’re half right. What it was intended to do, and I think the sentencing guidelines came in in the early 80’s. I can’t tell you exactly when. But it was somewhere in ‘83 or ‘84. And what they were deciding to do was to essentially create national baselines and reduce unwanted disparities among similarly situated people. So I don’t know that it would be accurate that they were intended to necessarily decrease sentences or help defendants. But it was definitely designed to get rid of some of the variances that you were seeing across locations.


Jessa: And one result of that seems to be that everybody goes to prison for longer.


Nate: Well, right. And sort of the inevitable result is that it is easy to pass tough-on-crime legislation. It’s politically expedient to make yourself look tough on crime, and that results in sentences going in one direction, with the exception of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2011, which did reduce the difference between the 100 to 1 ratio between crack and cocaine. That went down to 28 to 1.


Jessa: Oh. Alright so crack is now significantly less dangerous than it was.


Nate: Only 28 times more dangerous than cocaine.


Jessa: Thank god. It’s been stressing me out.


Nate: So you can do roughly four times the amount of crack that you used to. And, I mean, we’re kind of rightly pointing out the absurdity of how the fuck did they come up with that? The answer is it was a political compromise. A lot of people didn’t want to change it at all. Many people were pointing, as we’ve just done, that this is a completely racist policy. So they made it less racist, but still a little bit.


Jessa: It’s like the post-Obama racism. The post 2008 election racism. It’s softer. Here we are, in 2011. We have the black president now, so we’ll bump that down.


Nate: Something like that. Yeah. But that’s a really good question. And one of the sort of, probably the most infuriating aspect of that for me. This is my personal opinion on it, is the federal drug machine, the war on drugs. At least, prosecutors, law enforcement agents, purport to always try to be going after the kingpins. And anybody who regularly does federal practice will probably laugh at the idea that it seems like every prosecution involves a kingpin, which it obviously can’t. But this specific law completely turns that on its head because what’s crack made out of, Jessa?


Jessa: Cocaine.


Nate: So the people who are the large scale traffickers are not bringing..


Jessa: Crack. They’re bringing cocaine.


Nate: They’re bringing cocaine, yet they are going to be punished, if they’re found, at a much small, at a much less rate, based on the amount that they have, than the guy standing out on a corner who cooked it up into crack and selling 28 times less, is gonna get punished the same.


Jessa: Those coke dealers are the 1%’ers of the crack cocaine game.


Nate: In many respects, coke dealers are the 1%’ers of the drug dealing game.


Jessa: That’s probably true, although I did have a client once tell me that dealing cocaine got you what you wanted but dealing heroin got you what you needed.


Nate: I think there’s a couple users who said that to me, as well.


Jessa: So another question people had was how come, this isn’t really a federal question but I’m giving it to you anyway cause we can talk about it. It’s sort of a federal question. But people wanted to know, okay. There’s a federal death penalty and there’s the death penalty in some states. How come there isn’t the death penalty in other states and what kind of crime would you have to commit to be sentenced to death federally? That was a lot of different options. You can answer one or any part of that or just give me a non-responsive answer. That’d be fine, too.


Nate: Well. I mean. So I guess, to address what was the overarching part of that question, which is just simply put, there is a federal death penalty. But not every state has the death penalty, and that is sort of a state-by-state determination whether or not they have that as an available punishment. But federally, they do for a certain specified list of crimes. I actually don’t know what those crimes are, off the top of my head.


Jessa: Treason’s one.


Nate: I’m sure treason is one. I’m sure, like, various terrorism offences qualify.


Jessa: Murdering a DEA agent or a federal agent, I think, will do it.


Nate: And I think various forms of homicide, although there’s probably gotta be some aggravating factor to warrant it. And then, of course, the government has the opportunity or the discretion to pursue the death penalty or not in various cases. The one that’s coming to mind is Dylann Roof.


Jessa: Oh yeah.


Nate: They pursued it. So yeah. I mean, I guess it’s just that simple, is if you’re being prosecuted within the federal court system and you’re convicted of a qualifying offence, yeah. They can seek the death penalty even if it’s not a state that, otherwise, you could be killed. I don’t remember the rest of your question.


Jessa: That’s probably because it was a compound question, in like, five separate questions.




Jessa: You know what I remember about federal jurisdiction? I remember, like, exactly two things about that class from law school. One is AEDPA, which is the effective death penalty act. And that was, like, the one week of fed juri that I really tuned in and that was the totality of my essay.


Nate: I remember you telling me this.


Jessa: And it was, like, fucking awesome because I totally didn’t know anything else about federal jurisdiction. The other thing is the Mann Act, which is one of my favorite named laws. Because Mann, M-A-N-N, is..


Nate: That’s transporting the ladies across the state lines for fun.


Jessa: For immoral purposes. Yeah. Which, I don’t know. That might involve crack cocaine.


Nate: It could. And actually, I can’t say that I’ve ever encountered that, but I know that there are some corresponding jurisdictional crimes for transporting minors, for the same way. So that comes up, especially, like, now, with the internet..


Jessa: Amber Alert.


Nate: But, you know, I’m communicating with someone over Snapchat. Not me personally, although. Well.


Jessa: I don’t think anyone thinks you’re communicating with anyone over Snapchat.


Nate: I mean.


Jessa: At least, no one that works at this office.


Nate: You damn well know that I actually do not, I don’t Snap.


Jessa: Nate hates social media.


Nate: I’m not really a fan. I don’t tweet. I am unaware of the twitter presence of Getting Off, for instance.


Jessa: You’re really missing out on our Facebook page.


Nate: I’ll work on that.


Jessa: Also, update your fucking LinkedIn, bro. It’s been the same for, like, 12 years. He has never changed it.


Nate: Don’t send me a LinkedIn request because I’m not gonna respond to it. In any event. Get off me being the Bah Humbug Scrooge at the office. But yeah. You get people who are communicating via internet on opposite sides of the state lines and then they go there to meet the young lady and things go downhill, predictably, from there. That’s how you get the federal jurisdiction.


Jessa: I mean, I think things go downhill really depends on what your definition of up and downhill is.


Nate: That’s right. Maybe they go up.


Jessa: What other things would you want to tell people about the federal system?


Nate: Well.




Nate: I mean, it is interesting. We touched on this before. You really do see just depressingly high sentences very often. And there’s a couple reasons for that, outside of the guidelines that we talked about. I mean. It is more common that you’re going to get people who are either repeat offenders who state court system is sort of done with, so they’re electing to try to have the feds intervene so that they can get that higher sentence. Or somebody who really is maybe a higher level drug dealer, at some level. So in that sense, it makes sense. But it can be difficult to deal with. And I think particularly coming from state court and then moving in there, I mean. It’s jaw-dropping, what people are looking at. It’s crazy. I have a couple clients right now and I’m trying to explain to them that their guideline sentences are going to be 22-25 years. And these are guys in their early 30s who have some criminal history, but, they’re basically middle level drug dealers. And I think if we were talking about them in state court, it’d be 5. Maybe 10 if things went horribly. So that can be difficult to deal.


Jessa: Also, compare that to some of the sentences we see with violent crimes in state court. There are a lot of sexual assaults and homicides, not first degree intentional homicides, but homicides of various types that generate a far lower prison sentence in state court than what you can get as a federal sentence.


Nate: Oh. It’s entirely true.


Jessa: Which, like. If you’re a person that is all about protection of the public, we could probably ask some questions about that.


Nate: It’s sort of a little interesting, I guess. Somewhat converse to that. Another pretty common area of federal criminal practice is child porn. You get a lot of child porn prosecutions there. And I’m sure you and Nick have covered how this works, generally, in state court. Or at least touched on it. So for people who don’t know in Wisconsin, we have a three year mandatory minimum for any child porn offence. So that can be pretty draconian in certain circumstances, if you’re talking about somebody who has a very small amount of, like, maybe several images, right? They’re still looking at a mandatory three year sentence, and if you don’t have a prosecutor who’s willing to do anything about it, which most aren’t, you’re stuck. What’s interesting is in the federal system, you can get some, again, incredibly lengthy sentences or at least lengthy guideline recommendations. But depending on how it’s charged, there is no mandatory minimum. So in certain circumstances, it can actually be better to be in federal court for child porn offences.


Jessa: Here’s. So. One of the many things that our listener base makes fun of Nick and I for are our repeated references of being luddites or otherwise technologically inept.


Nate: Sure. Which is totally true, by the way.


Jessa: Yes, it is. I mean, like. Nate can attest. Gansner, in particular, has little tantrums somewhat on the regular.


Nate: “Why won’t things just work?!”


Jessa: “Why won’t this work? Just make the fucking printer work!” It’s the same printer that we’ve always had.


Nate: You just have to hit print.


Jessa: Yeah. It’s fine. He’s on vacation and he was, like, texting me “How do I set up the auto-reply on my email?” I was, like, I’m ignoring this. I’m not gonna walk him through it. He can sort it out.


Nate: New phone. Who dis?


Jessa: Yeah. New phone. Who dis? But one of the interesting things to me about the enhancers. You talked about how that moves up and down the guidelines, with child porn is illustrating why lawyers are luddites, there’s actually still an enhancer for possessing it on a computer.


Nate: Well, right. So that’s, there’s a 2 point enhancer for use of a computer in possessing your child pornography, which suggests that there’s somewhere somebody..




Nate: Maybe that exists somewhere, but I am unaware of it. And it’s funny because there are certain judges who sort of, for that very reason, just don’t apply that anymore. This applies in every case. But yes.


Jessa: That gives you guys an idea of the world that we’re actually working in here, is that our laws still suggest that it is 1979 and that people are..


Nate: And I mean, they do. I mean. It’s interesting because you do actually get really, you can get into some really high tech discussions. And I think, probably in the federal judges, I think probably in many respects, some of them, at least, definitely law enforcement, are on the cutting edge of that, compared to what we’ve seen in state court. But the laws don’t keep up.


Jessa: Not even a little bit. So that’s it. Is there anything else you wanna talk to people about? It doesn’t have to be about the federal system. You can tell them terrible stories about Gansner or me. But Gansner’s not here. Or you can. I would tell you to promote yourself on social media.


Nate: Send me a friend request, people.


Jessa: He’s on Myspace and Friendster.


Nate: Friendster is primed to make a comeback in 2018. I’m just telling you.


Jessa: Is that a hot take?


Nate: Slightly cool take. I don’t know. It’s. Do I have any funny stories about Nick that are.. I know that this is, like, we don’t have to censor our language, but..


Jessa: No. We don’t. We don’t have to censor our language.


Nate: I don’t feel like I want to completely out the guy. Yeah. I don’t know. It’s been fun to listen to you guys. For anybody who’s wondering, I can absolutely tell you that listening to Nick and Jessa do this podcast is essentially identical to being in our office. It almost makes me uncomfortable to listen to because I get kind of a weird feeling like, deja vu or something. So yeah.


Jessa: I think it’s funny you listen to it at all. Cause my husband, James, does not listen to it.


Nate: I had to do it in small doses. I can’t do any more than 15 minutes at a time. Particularly because, like, it’s listening to you guys talk but I can’t fucking jump in. This is just weird.


Jessa: “That’s a stupid idea.”


Nate: Right. “Gansner. Stop!”


Jessa: “Gansner! Gansner! Look.”


Nate: “Look.”


Jessa: Yeah. We are actually this tangential and foul-mouthed. This is kind of what we do.


Nate: You guys tone it down quite a bit. We’re a lot more foul-mouthed in real life.


Jessa: That’s true.


Nate: Don’t hold that against us.


Jessa: We also probably make darker jokes. The jokes here are dark. But I think they get real dark.


Nate: You do what you gotta do. I don’t know how you exist in this world for any lengthy period of time without being able to laugh at things that can be pretty sad.


Jessa: Well thank you for making it so that I didn’t talk to a microphone alone for my third holiday bonus episode because people asked for them and so I did two, except then I started to feel like  a really sad person.


Nate: Yeah. We were all getting a little worried about Jessa.


Jessa: Yeah. I mean. You know. That’s fair. So guys, this is the last of our holiday bonus episodes. I think Nate would like to tell you that if you come hire our law firm, he’ll be slightly better behaved than Gansner or I.


Nate: Yeeeeeah. Maybe. Gansner will talk to you more.


Jessa: Oh my god. But Gansner will talk to anybody.




Nate: Right. I’m almost certainly going to be on time, out of anybody. If that’s important to you.


Jessa: I’m on time to court.


Nate: Well. Are you?


Jessa: I am. I’m on time to court… ish.


Nate: Usually.


Jessa: Within a three-minute window.


Nate: Here’s a difference between state and federal court. Federal court starts on time.


Jessa: State court does not.


Nate: The times are suggestions.


Jessa: In our defence, they schedule 35 things for 8:30 and nothing’s ever gonna be done til 10am anyway, so if you roll in at 8:35, it’s really no sweat off anybody’s back. But anyway. Thanks Nate. And thank you guys for listening. We have hit over 85,000 downloads, which is crazy. We’ve been doing this for about six weeks, so thank you so much. Continue to rate us on Apple Podcasts, on whatever podcast platform you use. Come join the Facebook group. The Facebook group is a lot of fun. Now people are posting dog memes, which, of course, delights me. But yeah. Come check us out and Happy Holidays. We’ll be back, Nick and I pre-recorded our R. Kelly stuff and that will still be uploading on our regularly scheduled Sunday and Wednesday uploads. So thanks so much for being here. I am Jessa Nicholson Goetz.


Nate: I’m Nate Otis.


Jessa: And this was Getting Off.