White Collared: A White Collar Podcast

Bad Judgement

May 01, 2021 Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard Season 1 Episode 9
White Collared: A White Collar Podcast
Bad Judgement
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

Discussion is on Season 1, Episode 9, entitled Bad Judgement. Hosted by Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard.

Websites

  1. Official White Collared PodCast website
  2. White Collared PodCast on Twitter
  3. White Collared PodCast on Facebook
  4. White Collar Bad Judgement Transcript
  5. Criminal Resource Manual, Section 515. Requests for Disclosure of Tax Returns and Return Information From the IRS Not Relating to Tax Administration
  6. Department of Homeland Security Form I-151A
    1. Overview
    2. I-515A form
  7. New York State and Local Retirement System
    1. Vested Retirement Benefit
    2. Performance of Duty Disability
    3. En-Con Police Disability
  8. Gorham Silver
  9. Baccarat Crystal
  10. The Office
    1. Season 4 – Episode 04 “Money” Transcript
    2. An American Workplace | A 'The Office' Podcast
  11. New York Recording Laws
  12. This podcast contains enhanced content. To access these features, consider using an advanced podcast player. 
    1. OverCast (iOS) [recommended]
    2. HyperCatcher (iOS) 
    3. Podcast Addict (Android) 
    4. Podverse (iOS, Android) [recommended]
  13. Help support this show 
    1. Make a donation via "Buy Me A Coffee
    2. Make a donation via PayPal

Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/TwyloZoneMedia)

Bad Judgement

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [00:00]
[Titles] This is White Collared, The Podcast, season one, episode nine, Bad Judgment.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [00:13]
[Intro] This is White Collared, The Podcast, which is a retrospective commentary on the USA network television series, White Collar. My name is Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [00:26]
Let's get into the episode.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [00:28]
Bad Judgment first aired on January 26, 2010, and was written by show creator, Jeff Eastin and Joseph C. Muscat. Directed by John T. Kretchmer.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [00:41]
A man has come to the FBI offices with his daughter to plead with Peter to save his house from foreclosure. Bank paperwork shows that the man’s father took out a second mortgage on the house prior to his death. The man claims the mortgage is a fraud, saying that his father wouldn't do that, having promised to give the man's daughter a home to grow up in. Peter resists as it looks cut and dried, but reluctantly agrees to take another look at the case out of sympathy for the daughter. But the case puts Peter and Neal back in the crosshairs of an adversary.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [01:14]
Meanwhile, Neal asks Peter to send a message to Kate.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [01:18]
[Act 1] The episode begins with Peter and Neal in a discussion and walking into the FBI office where they are immediately by Jones.

Clinton Jones [01:28]
David Sullivan is waiting for you in the conference room.

Neal Caffrey [01:31]
What's wrong.

Peter Burke [01:32]
He's been calling all week about a mortgage fraud case. It’s a pretty cut and dry foreclosure. I don't know what else we can do for him.

Clinton Jones [01:39]
He brought his little girl.

Peter Burke [01:41]
Oh geez. He's playing the sympathy card.

Neal Caffrey [01:44]
Is it working?

Peter Burke [01:45]
Yep. Thanks. Come on. Let's go talk to him.

Neal Caffrey [01:49]
What, you need me for this? You're uncomfortable around the 6-year-old.

Peter Burke [01:53]
I don't speak that language.

Neal Caffrey [01:54]
I do?

Peter Burke [01:55]
You mean you do PeterPan. Come on. Mr. Sullivan. And this must be...

David Sullivan [02:02]
…Alison

Peter Burke [02:03]
That's a 5-1-5 form, not a coloring book.

Neal Caffrey[02:06]
I'm sure the bureau will get by without it.

Peter Burke [02:09]
What's going on, Mr. Sullivan?

David Sullivan [02:10]
The bank forecloses on our home in a week.

Peter Burke [02:13]
Mr. Sullivan’s father recently passed.

Neal Caffrey [02:15]
Sorry to hear that

Peter Burke [02:16]
He left him his home. and before his death, he took out a second mortgage on it. 

David Sullivan [02:21]
He didn't take out a second mortgage.He would never do that. I know him.

Peter Burke [02:24]
Do you? Last three years of his life, He was in an extended-care center. You only visited four times. I told you -- I looked at your case.

David Sullivan [02:33]
My dad was a hard man. Near the end of his life, He wanted to get to know his granddaughter. She got us past our differences. He wanted to give her a home to grow up in. That's how I know My father wouldn't take out a second mortgage to play blackjack, okay? You're our last chance.

Peter Burke [02:51]
We'll look into it. No promises.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [02:57]
As I said previously in the Hard Sell episode, Peter is the sort of guy who doesn't like to see good people taken advantage of by others. Now, obviously he doesn't want to get sucked into investigating a case that he thinks is, is pretty much open and shut. You know, cut and dried. Slam dunk. It’s a case where there doesn't seem to be any kind of question about what actually happened.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [03:22]
He's apparently also a sucker for kids. He can't look at the girl, who's done nothing wrong and take the chance that she might suffer as a result of her family being cheated, especially if Peter had the chance to do something about it. So he needs somebody—in this case, Neal—to try and give him the strength to resist. Uh, I guess kind of as an anchor to keep him from, from drifting off, into, uh, sympathy and caving into, uh, the, the requests from this father, who's obviously using his six-year-old child, uh, as, as a form of manipulation. And I can't really blame him I guess, but I'm not sure Neal's really a good choice because he can be a bit unpredictable, uh, in certain situations. And although I don't think we've seen him in a situation dealing with a child yet. I've got the feeling that Neal's a little bit of a sucker for kids, too. So, you know, it's, it's, it's probably not going to end well because they both, I think, are suckers for kids. And I don't mean that in a negative way. I just mean that they just can't resist the kid.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [04:32]
Neal, I think realizes that what Peter's problem is, and sort of rubs it in when he said, Oh, you're uncomfortable around a six year old. But Neal's reluctant to join the interview himself. Again, as I said, just a moment ago, I think he also recognizes that, that he couldn't resist a kid. And of course, Peter having just been kind of jabbed by Neal with his, his six year old comment, uh, Peter returns to jibe by calling Neal Peter Pan.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [05:02]
[Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual, Section 515] When Peter and Neal enter the conference room, the daughter is coloring a picture on what Peter calls a 5-1-5 form. And she hands the covering project to Peter, and when she does, we can clearly see that it says, “Federal Bureau of investigation, United States, Department of Justice”.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [05:22]
Seems legit. Except, there is no form 5-1-5 specific to the FBI that would have that header that I can find. Now in the Criminal Resource Manual, there is a section called 5-1-5, which is entitled “Requests for Disclosure of Tax Returns and Return Information From the IRS, Not Relating to Tax Administration”. The procedure and process, um, with regard to this type of a request, the request for disclosure of tax returns and return information, there is a specific format that is explained in the section, uh, how document has to be prepared for this request for submission to the court. But it's a format and a template is provided for the format that the documents are to be prepared in. But as far as I can tell, as far as is referenced, there is not a specific form for the process. And additionally, again, as I said, this is the Department of Justice, not the FBI specific.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [06:34]
[Department of Homeland Security Form I-515A] Now the Department of Homeland Security does have a form “I-515A”, which is entitled “Notice to Student or Exchange Visitor, Non-Compliance Termination Procedure”. The short version of that is that, uh, students coming in from out of the country, uh, foreign students who are a certain classifications, have to have certain documents prepared, signed, and on hand, when they arrive at a port of entry to the United States. If they don't have documents properly prepared, filled out, completed and available, the US Customs and Border Protection officers can deny entry to the United States. However, as an alternative, the officer does have the discretion to issue a form I-515A. Now, that document allows the student to have temporary admission to the United States for 30 days. And then of course they have certain legal obligations that they have to follow on in order to ensure that they can stay in and complete their studies or attend the schools or, or whatever.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [07:44]
Now the official form for that from the Department of Homeland Security states across the top, “Department of Homeland Security, US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement”. And it’s clearly not an FBI form. So it can't be the form to which Peter was referring and which is shown.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [08:05]
So the conclusion is, that I can come to, is that the form that Peter's referring to really doesn't exist. But it is a nice little touch that lends a, a bit of authenticity to it by being able to refer to it, an actual sp…or to a specific form by number it's something a real cop might do.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [08:27]
[Act 1 Continues] After their meeting with Sullivan, Peter and Neal are talking and Peter apparently found something that is suspicious; specifically that the detective who was investigating the case originally—the original investigator—suddenly retired at the age of 35, which is exceedingly early for a police officer to be retiring. The fact that he retired that early raises a lot of questions because that is not normal. So Peter decide to go talk to the detective that was originally looking at the case and find out what he can tell them. And maybe find out why he retired early, because it clearly seems suspicious.

Peter Burke [09:16]
Mr. Herrera. Thanks for coming. I’m agent Burke.

Herrera [09:20]
Who's this?

Neal Caffrey[09:22]
I'm with the FBI.

Herrera [09:24]
Uh, no. He's with the FBI. Fed couldn't afford those cuff links.

Peter Burke [09:29]
For a retired detective, you don't seem out of practice. He's my consultant. We're investigating the Sullivan case. You know, you cleared over 90% of your cases. You don't mind me asking, what made you all of a sudden turn in your resignation?

Herrera [09:41]
Well I…I got tired of the grind. Look, I, uh, I swung an early pension, okay? I don't know if you're recording this conversation, but I don't have anything to say. I appreciate the coffee.

Peter Burke [09:55]
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, burned your career for this case. You're just going to walk away?

Herrara [09:58]
Like I said, I got nothing to say. Sullivan's a dud. Let it go. Thanks for the coffee. You know what? Let me leave a tip.

Peter Burke [10:20]
No, I got it.

Herrara [10:21]
I insist. It's the least I can do.

Neal Caffrey [10:28]
That was cryptic. $4.76.

Peter Burke [10:33]
For three cups of coffee.

Neal Caffrey [10:33]
Pretty generous for a retired cop's salary.

Peter Burke [10:38]
Very generous and very specific.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [10:43]
[New York Police early retirement] Sullivan says he swung an early retirement. Okay, that’s possible. But how did he manage to swing that early retirement? That's really the big question here. It looks like the retirement system for the city and the state of New York are the same. It's part of the state system, regardless of whether your state or city employee. Trying to find information on their website was quite frankly a little bit difficult because it's, it's a convoluted dump of a mess or mess of a dump. I'm not sure which is really the more accurate way to say it, but it's, it's difficult to find clear information that's just, you know, A, B, C, D, E, it’s, it’s kinda convoluted. But from what I can tell, if someone leaves public employment before the retirement age, which is 55 according to their website, but has met the minimum service requirement, which based on Herrera's date of service would have been a five-year minimum, they would be eligible for a vested retirement benefit when they reach retirement age: 55. So if you retire at 35 and you have five years of service in, when you reach 55, you will get your retirement benefits. Before then, you won’t get anything. That's a deal? That's the deal Herrera got? Doesn’t sound like a good deal to me. Sounds a little bit odd, a little bit suspicious, and I think Peter's right to have questions about it.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [12:16]
[New York Police disability retirement] Now, there is a possibility of a medical retirement prior to the standard retirement age of 55. It looks like there's a couple of different versions of their disability retirement that, as I read it, it's hard to tell what exactly the differences are. There's obviously some difference because they are different…they’re listed as different types of disability options. I'm not sure I really understand the difference and I think it's a subtle difference.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [12:46]
[New York Police disability retirement: Performance of Duty Disability] But the first one is the performance of duty disability, which is basically a…you’re entitled to a performance of duty to a disability benefit if you're found to have permanently been disabled as a result of the performance of your duties, regardless of the amount of service time you have.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [12:46]
[New York Police disability retirement: En-Con Police Disability] Now, the second one is called an ex-con police disability. To receive that sort of disability, you have to be physically or mentally unable to perform your duties as the natural and proximate result of a disability sustained in service, not caused by your own willful negligence.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [13:21]
It seems to be similar, but a subtle difference, the first one being a disability based on an actual injury that occurred as a result of your duties, and the second one seems to be something that has occurred as a result of the injuries you sustained. So a, um, a secondary type, uh, injury or mental injury…like I said, I'm not certain, I really understand the total difference on the two, but it's not a huge difference, but ultimately you have to be somehow disabled while performing your duties in order to get one of those.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [14:00]
[Act 1 Continues] Now, I think we can rule out the disability retirement for Herrera. After all, if it was a disability retirement, it would have probably said that in the file and Peter wouldn't have questioned it. But the fact that he questions it means that it's probably not a disability retirement. It's probably just an early retirement, which as I said earlier, it kind of raises the question of why would a cop with apparently his track record, his ability, suddenly just retire years before he can even draw a cent on his retirement. It just doesn't add up.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [14:39]
And then of course there is the curious tip that Herrera left for them. A tip. Here's a tip for you. Oh yeah. Well, I…it’s subtle. It's a subtle comment because taken in the context of a coffee shop, he's leaving the tip for coffee, it could have just been that he only had four bills with him and he was trying to pull the rest out in change and that's what he had. It does seem, as Peter says, strangely specific and as Neal says, strangely cryptic. So they take that as a hint.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [15:15]
So they go back, they look through Herrera's paperwork for the Sullivan foreclosure case, all the paperwork that he had, and they're looking for anything that has a 4-7-6 number sequence, which was the tip that Herrera left. And they find that that number is a court identification number for a judge Michelle Clark. And so they think there might be some connection there, especially since that was the judge who signed the foreclosure order.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [15:46]
Well, apparently Neal has asked Mozzie to do some research on the judge because next we see Mozzie and Neal in the apartment, and Mozzie points out that judge Michelle Clark was the judge who signed the search warrants that Fowler had secure when he was trying to pin the theft of the Steinmetz Pink on Neal in the episode, Freefall. And Neal makes…it, it's kind of a, almost to himself common, ‘what’s her name doing on search warrants? Peter and I are working on a mortgage fraud scam.’

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [16:18]
And that's a very telling comment. It's very astute comment on, on Neal's part. Because even though I'm not a lawyer or an expert in courts, I do know that foreclosures are civil law, not criminal law. And I think that Neal's point here is, is that search warrants are not used by civil law judges as they are not part of a civil law and that civil law judges do not get involved in criminal cases typically where search warrants would be used. So the fact that she's signing search warrants, and she's not a criminal law judge, is a red flag, huge red flag. And Neal recognizes that fact. And of course, the fact that she was the judge who signed the search warrants for Fowler on Neal, uh, when it would not be appropriate for her to have done so, seems to kind of double up on his suspicions; She may be involved in Fowler's nefarious scheme, uh, involving Kate, involving Neal, involving Peter, which would in turn reinforce the possibility, at least in his mind, that the judge is also complicit in the possible mortgage fraud scheme. So it's, it's kind of a reinforcement, A reinforces B, and B reinforces A.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [17:35]
Since the conversation had turned to Fowler as a result of the judge's connection to him, the conversation also then turns to Kate. Mozzie begins by urging Neal to keep the connection between the judge and Fowler a secret. He’s correct. When he points out that if Neal tells Peter, Peter would likely include that information in a report, and that report would probably alert Fowler, which none of them wants to happen.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [18:02]
Mozzie also states that he and Peter actually agree on the likelihood—or at least the possibility—that Fowler may not be holding Kate, but that she may actually be working with Fowler, which Mozzie seems to be a little bit, he seems to be a little bit surprised that he and…he and Peter agree on something.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [18:21]
But he also seems to think that maybe Neal should take that as a hint. You know, from his perspective, look, it's not a good thing when both the suit and Mozzie agree on something, at least in Mozzie’s mind. So I think he may be trying to suggest to Neal that, ‘hey, if both of us agree, it's a bad thing’. You need to at least consider it. But when Neal refuses to concede the possibility, Mozzie suggests that Neal used Peter to get a message to Kate. Sounds like a plan.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [18:52]
Back in the office. Peter and Neal are discussing the judge's involvement in a number of prior foreclosures when Elizabeth call. She invites Peter home for lunch to sample some food that she's received from a caterer that she is auditioning. When Peter asks what's on the menu, she says pâté, couscous, a lot of fancy stuff. It's obvious that Peter is not excited by the menu. He says, ‘you know how much I love…stuff’. As I said before, Peter, isn't a fancy guy. He's more of a meatloaf and beer guy. He doesn't care for…’stuff’, and he doesn't seem to really understand the appeal of…’stuff’. Probably because of that, Elizabeth also suggests that, if Peter wants, he could invite Neal along as well, you know, kind of, Oh, I just thought of this. Yeah, no, you didn't just think…that, that was the whole plan. And Peter understands that, but it's really kind of an acknowledgement by Elizabeth that Peter probably wouldn't give her the sort of response and feedback that she needs and that really she's wanting Neal, but she can't ask Neal directly. And she wants his, she wants Neal's palette because she's certain that with Neal's palette, she will get good information, objective information, uh, qualified information about the quality of the food that she's auditioning.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [20:20]
I think she, maybe she also realizes that if both Neal and Peter likes something on the menu, then it's probably a home run. So, there's that added benefit as well. But mostly she's just wanting Neal to get over there. And she really couldn't think of a way to get him over there other than this way.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [20:36]
As they are on the way to Peter and Elizabeth's house, Neal asks Peter to try to get a message to Kate: ‘Did the bottle really mean goodbye or did he misunderstand the message?’

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [20:48]
At the house, Peter and Neal began sampling the food that she has waiting. Peter nearly gags on the foie gras. Elizabeth…in all fairness, it's an honest and justified reaction. She takes his response simply Peter being Peter. Peter is someone who doesn't appreciate fine cuisine and she understands that, and so she just that's how she takes his response. But Neal confirms that no, this is not fine cuisine.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [21:16]
I also find her comment, ‘Yeah, that does smell bad. Thank god you guys tried it first’, curious and humorous. It's almost as if she already had her doubts about the quality of the food, about the taste of the food, but really didn't have the guts to try it herself and wanted somebody else to do it first, you know. Or, or perhaps she thought that whatever was giving her doubts might bias her judgment and wanted someone who was unbiased to try it first to either dispel her doubts or confirm her doubts about her objectivity. Uh, either way I find it humorous that she was using them as guinea pigs.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [21:54]
Speaking of Guinea pigs, Peter spots, the two coffee cups on the table and asks Elizabeth who the other Guinea pigs were or who the other Guinea pig was. And it comes to light that a so-called cable company person had come into their house. It seems the crew had been working on the power cables up the street, they’d cut them, and it shut off their cable service. So they just generously offered to come in and make sure their cable system was working. Now credit to Elizabeth for at least being suspicious, and checking with the neighbors, and confirming that yes, they too had lost their cable service. But the fact that their neighbors also lost their cable service doesn't mean that their neighbors also had somebody coming to their house to ‘check’ their service—and put sarcasm quotes around the word ‘check’. And the fact that they also lost their cable doesn't mean it's legit that somebody was coming to their house claiming to be from the cable company, wanting to come into their home.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [22:54]
Neal of course is instantly and rightly suspicious. First of all, anyone who has had to call the cable company for in-home service knows that they don't show up at the speed of light ever, never, ever. It doesn't happen. In fact, sometimes you're lucky if they show up at all. Second. If they do something that affects the service, interrupts it, they cut a cable, whatever—the cable company doesn't call you. They never call you ever, never, ever. Except if you're late with your payment, then they'll call you. But other than that, they won't call you. Even the power company, when they're going to be working in your area and they know in advance that they're going to have to shut off the power to your neighborhood, they will alert you with a door hanger or a letter in the mail or something like that. But a phone call is never used. First of all, they may not be able to make contact with everyone. And secondly, it would be a huge expense and it takes a lot of time. But if the power company or the cable company is working on something and they just happened to cause an outage while they're working on something, they just fix it. That's it. They don't offer to check your house to make sure everything is working okay. I mean, they figure if there's a problem you call and if you don't well, that's your problem. But if you have a problem, you call, we're not going to bother. We're not going to waste our time trying to ask you if there's a problem, you'll call.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [24:22]
So here's a public service announcement for everybody. Anytime anyone calls unsolicited claiming to be from a utility company, offering to come into your home and fix something that they magically discovered is wrong, or somebody calls claiming to be from Microsoft or Apple or Google, claiming that your computer or your phone are infected with a virus or has some other problem and they offer to fix it for you, they’re probably lying. And by probably, I mean, it's about 110% chance that they're lying because they don't do that ever, never, ever.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [24:54]
Well, Neal was instantly suspicious when Elizabeth mentioned the cable guys. Peter didn't seem to be immediately suspicious, but as she tells the story, he does become suspicious because he knows that that's not how things work. He grabs the phone, that's sitting there on the table and hits through last number redial function on it, and it dials an invalid number. Which could mean that either the number was valid when it was called by the last person who dialed it, but was quickly put out, serving immediately afterwards, but, or it was never valid in the first place. And it was probably, or at least possibly dialed by the supposed cable guy as part of the charade of checking on their cable TV. You, if you had somebody come into your home to do a power or cable TV, or internet service, you know, it's, it's pretty routine for them to have to call into the office about something. So that would be expected. And that would be part of the charade. And if you're going to do that, then it's probably best if you either dial a number that's prearranged, which would actually be a better solution, or you just dial a fake number that you know is fake. In this case, it looks like the person dial it fake number

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [26:08]
Peter scribbles on the notepad, ‘bug’, Uh, he starts looking for it, and Neal engages Elizabeth and a conversation about our clients to just keep the sound going in case there is a bug, make it sound somewhat natural, giving Peter a chance to look around. Peter inspects the cable box, and finds the bug, and smashes it because he's not happy. Uh, Oh, he gives them a little message too that says, Hey, I know you're onto this, I know you're back there, I, I found your bug, he, he's not happy.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [26:41]
After that. The three of them move out onto the patio, presumably because there's no bugs out there, although they can't really be a hundred percent certain, but it's a fairly good bet because at least according to Elizabeth’s story, the supposed cable guy was in the living room area and apparently didn't go out onto the patio. But you never know. So they're still trying to be circumspect in what they say, just in case.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [27:06]
Neal says they really need to check for more bugs, but they can't go through the normal channels because OPR has their fingers in everything throughout the entire FBI. And of course, Neal offers his cleaning guy. And Peter right away knows who he's talking about. And Peter, really…No, uh, no, I, no, not that guy. But Peter eventually agrees, albeit reluctantly, and the way he does it is obviously a bit off-putting to Elizabeth and makes her a bit wary. Understandable. Peter's not excited that, that this guy was going to be coming into their house. So if Peter's is not excited about it, Elizabeth is not excited about it. Understandable.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [27:54]
And of course, Mozzie shows up and obviously Peter's earlier comments didn't make Elizabeth comfortable with the idea of this cleaner, whoever he is coming in, but she does seem to find Mozzie amusing, and perplexing and suspicious. And of course, Mozzie is on his most enigmatic behavior, which doesn't help. And then Neal goes and makes things a bit worse when Elizabeth expresses a mild concern asking, ‘you sure he won't try anything?' Neal suggests that, well, so long as they don't have any rare paintings or coins, they'll be okay. But Mozzie spots, some Gorham silverware, and a Baccarat vase, Neal half jokingly comments, ‘well, okay, maybe you should keep an eye on him.’ It really doesn't amuse her at all.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [28:46]
[Gorham Silver]
Let’s take a slight detour and talk about some Gorham silver and Baccarat vases. First, the Gorham silver. According to the Good Taste website, among the most turned to American makers of silver products is Gorham silver, a name made famous by landmark commissions for presidential families, major awards and other prominent projects.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [29:09]
But beyond the company, special commissions Gorham's prolific production of tea sets, serving trays, candelabra, napkin rings, silverware, and more remain one of the most popular searches among collectors. Gorham manufacturing company first opened it’s doors in 1831 in Providence Rhode Island, and was under the management of co-founders Jabez Gorham and Henry Webster.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [29:34]
The duo had hoped to build a business creating smaller, wears such as buttons and combs. But in the late 1840’s, Jabez handed control of the company over to his son, John and Gorham's production began to focus on larger silver sets. Part of the motivation for this shift was, uh, a set of new import taxes that made import of major European silver makers works to the United States more costly. Having previously toured European silver studios, Gorham worked to recreate those drop presses and silver smithing techniques that they used in his Rhode Island workshop. He even went so far as to hire European craftsmen to better incorporate the old world style into the Gorham designs.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [30:24]
As a result of all these steps that he took, uh, the result was an exponential growth of Gorham's popularity, which was also spurred by first lady, Mary Todd Lincoln's commission of a silver set for the white house in 1859.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [30:39]
Also contributing was the introduction of both silver plated and hollowware pieces in the late 1860s. During the 1890s Gorham created some of what would become their most beloved patterns. And these designs, which were partly due to the vision of then director William Codman, were featured in the company's upscale boutiques in major cities like New York, and served to further the acclaim of the maker.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [31:08]
Now, the inertia of these successes continued into the 20th century when under the leadership of Eric Magnuson, they introduced art deco forms. By the mid point of the century, though, America's love for silver had begun to wane. And in 1967, Gorham was sold to Textron, which was a Providence based industrial conglomerate. After that a merger with Linux holdings in 2005 signaled Gorham's downfall. Four years later, Lennox would go bankrupt. Not a real auspicious ending.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [31:43]
[Baccarat Crystal] Now about the Baccarat vase. In 1764, King Louis, the 15th of France gave—I’m not even gonna try to pronounce this—but it's, uh, Prince Bishop Cardinal, something or other. Joseph de Laval-Montmorency—I’m probably butchering that name, so just ignore that last part. Uh, anyway, uh, the King gave the Prince Bishop Cardinal permission to found a Glassworks in the town of Baccarat in the Loraine region of Eastern France. Initially production consisted of window panes mirrors and stemware until 1816 when the first crystal oven went into operation. In 1823, Baccarat received a Royal commission and this began a lengthy line of commissions for royalty and heads of state throughout the world. In 1855, Baccarat won it’s first gold medal at the world's fair in Paris. The crystal production expanded its scope and Baccarat built a worldwide reputation for making fine stemware, chandeliers, barware, and perfume bottles.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [32:51]
With the end of the Imperial era in 1870, which coincided with the defeat of Napoléon III, influences outside of France began to have a stronger influence on Baccarat’s work at the time. During this time, one of the strongest production areas for baccarat became perfume bottles, and by 1907 production was over 4,000 bottles a day.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [33:16]
Baccarat created an American subsidiary in 1948 in New York City. They have American stores in Costa Mesa, California, Houston, Texas, Greenwich, Connecticut, uh, Palm beach, California, Las Vegas, and Miami. And in 1964, a retrospective was held at the Louvre museum to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the crystal works.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [33:39]
In 1993, Baccarat began making jewelry. And in 1997, the company expanded in perfume. Makes sense. You're going to make the bottles, why not make the stuff that goes inside?

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [33:52]
[Act 1 Continues] Back in the episode, we get a passing glimpse of the extent of Mozzie's sense of paranoia. Apparently he scanned Satchmo for electronic bugs. Now we didn't see this, we just know this because we heard Elizabeth tell Mozzie, ‘I don't think he bugged the dog’, to which Mozzie of course, responds, ‘amateur’. So clearly Mozzie is not letting what is reasonable interfere with his sense of paranoia

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [34:18]
Peter and Neal leave the house and in the safety of public places are discussing the case and their situation. Neal has revealed the judge's connection to Fowler. Peter emphasizes the seriousness and risks of the situation by pointing out that they're basically going after a sitting federal judge. Neal says, ‘it'll be worth it if we can take down Fowler’. Peter seems to believe that if they can put enough pressure on the judge, she'll flip on Fowler in addition to stopping the Sullivan, foreclosure.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [34:50]
Upon their return to the office, we see stacks of boxes being wheeled in on hand trucks. Peter issues an order for the team to start looking at every document they can, and every document that they have on judge Clark, with the first point of interest being the Sullivan home and the foreclosure.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [35:08]
Fowler arrives and immediately Peter and Neal start trying to push his buttons. Peter does it by calling out Fowler on the Operation Mentor situation, Neal does it by a backhanded accusation of Fowler for trying to pin things on him. Hughes comes out and tells Fowler, ‘Okay, got your request. We've got an office space set up for you’. We have seen in the past that, although Hughes doesn't seem particularly to like Fowler, he does seem to be careful about crossing him, unless he has something real solid that he can use to back him up. Now, I can't read Hughes's attitude here. Uh, he doesn't seem to be hostile, but neither does he seem to be particularly receptive to Fowler's presence. So he seems to be trying to hold a neutral tone and not reveal what he's feeling.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [36:02]
[Act 2] Next, we see a group of agents sitting around the conference table, and apparently they've been spending a great deal of time going through the documents that they have on Judge Clark, and Peter tells everyone to take a short break. Neal tells Peter he thinks that he can demonstrate that the mortgage papers that the senior Sullivan supposedly had signed has forged signatures on them. Neal demonstrates the process of forging signatures by forging Peter’s. And what he does is, turns the signature upside down, or looks at it upside down, and reproduces it as a drawing, not as a signature. Now, I don't know if this is a truly legitimate method of forging a signature. I did look on the internet and I found a lot of questionable and non-authoritative references to this process. Some of those were anecdotal references to someone having been told such a thing in an art class or various other places, and many of them were almost word for word quotes from this episode, although they didn't generally reference the episode. So that being the case, I don't know that there…I didn't find any authoritative references that this is a, uh, a suitable and legitimate or even recommended method of forging a signature. Doesn't prove that it isn’t, I just can't find any evidence to prove that it is. And I suppose if you were a forger, you probably wouldn't want this information commonly known out there anyway, so I guess I'm not really surprised that the information isn’t…that I didn't find the information.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [37:41]
As Neal and Peter are talking, Fowler, interrupts their conversation and Peter's quite confrontational in his response. He is clearly not concerned with the possibility of rubbing Fowler's further the wrong way at this point. Now, based on the documentation they've found so far and Neal's information, Peter decides he needs to go talk to judge Clark in person.

Peter Burke [38:06]
I’m here investigating a foreclosure dispute filed by Mr. David Sullivan. You were the judge overseeing Sullivan's estate.

Judge Michelle Clark [38:15]
I thought this case was settled.

Peter Burke [38:16]
It was . By you. But we found some discrepancies in the signatures.

Judge Michelle Clark [38:21]
Discrepancies?

Peter Burke [38:22]
Forgeries. Enough for me to reopen the case.

Judge Michelle Clark [38:24]
Good luck, Agent Burke. Handwriting analysis won't have enough weight to restart the investigation. You got more than this?

Peter Burke [38:31]
I've got you. Nine suspicious foreclosures, and you're the common denominator.

Judge Michelle Clark [38:38]
What sort of salary does an FBI agent make?

Peter Burke [38:43]
Excuse me?

Judge Michelle Clark [38:44]
I'm curious. An agent of your stature—$140,000 a year at most?

Peter Burke [38:49]
Why do you ask

Judge Michelle Clark [38:50]
It's a shame you don't make enough for the services you provide, for what you do, the risks you take. I think you deserve double that.

Peter Burke [38:56]
What are you proposing?

Judge Michelle Clark [38:57]
Nothing. I'm simply suggesting that you should make a lot more money for the work that you're doing. Or not doing, for that matter. I think you deserve a bonus, Agent Burke.

Peter Burke [39:10]
What kind of bonus are we talking?

Judge Michelle Clark [39:12]
Quarter of a million. Does that interest you?

Peter Burke [39:15]
It might.

Judge Michelle Clark [39:16]
Perhaps we should continue this conversation next week. Somewhere... less official.

Peter Burke [39:21]
Perhaps we can.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [39:23]
Now the interesting thing about that scene is that, in my opinion, there was no bribe offered, technically speaking. She implied a bribe, but there was no direct offer of a bribe. She didn't say, Hey, I will give you this money if you do this for me. She just implied it by saying, you know, you, you deserve more for what you do or don't do.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [39:51]
And of course, although Peter didn't technically directly refuse the offer, technically there was nothing to refuse because there was no actual offer being made. And the fact is that this is essentially the same technique that is used regularly by law enforcement to, I don't want to say induce or lure, but to lead a suspect into making an explicit offer, whether it be a bribe or a drug sale, or what have you, so that a law enforcement can arrest that person for those acts, those, those illegal acts that they are attempting to perform. And as long as the police officers don't actually ask the person or direct the person to do something, technically the person did it of their own volition. They were not responding to a direct offer or request by law enforcement.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [40:43]
And that's the same thing that's happening here. So for Peter, if Peter had actually used the word bribe anywhere in there in their conversation, such as, oh, are you trying to offer me a bribe, or anything like that, that I would think that could possibly be used as a defense by the judge if and when the case ever got to trial. Because they could claim that it was entrapment. He used the word bribe. I never offered him a bribe. He used the word. He brought up a subject. Or worse, it could lead to the accusation against Burke having attempted to solicit a bribe and not just as a defense in her case, but actually as a charge against him.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [41:23]
So under the circumstances, I think that not only was Peter's non-response appropriate, it was also defensible. And was probably the safest decision he could have made under the circumstances while still trying to, uh, preserve their investigation and not compromise it.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [41:42]
Next, we see that the judge had recorded the conversation. Now, at this point, it could be for the intent of blackmail or she could have done it as part of Fowler’s case against Peter, you know, if the two of them were working together on, on their response to Peter and his investigation. Now we don't know at this point that that's the case, but it's a possibility.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [42:07]
[Recording Law] Now, some people might question the legality of the judge, uh, videotaping and recording that conversation because in many states it would be illegal to record a conversation without the express consent of everyone involved. But New York is a one party consent state. As long as at least one person in the conversation, and that's generally going to be the person doing the recording, consents to the eavesdropping of the conversation or the recording of the conversation, then no violation of privacy or criminal act has been committed. This means that eavesdropping, which is defined as the mechanical overhearing of a conversation by means of any device to record obtain, share, or use those communications, whether they are wire, oral, or electronic, is perfectly legal, making it legal to record the conversations. Now, this point does come up a little bit later in a different manner.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [43:08]
[Act 2 Continues] But in the meantime, back at the office, Peter tells Neal that in the morning, he's going to go to Hughes and get authorization for a sting on the judge. But at the same time, the judge calls Fowler and tells him that even though Peter didn't turn down the bribe, he didn't accept the bribe. Or maybe reverse that: even though he didn't accept the bribe, he didn't turn it down, which as I said, really, wasn't a direct bribe offer

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [43:32]
But regardless, Fowler wants the video but the judge obviously realizes that she is in danger of being compromised on the mortgage fraud case, and the conspiracy on that, and tells Fowler no dice. Not until he gets all the files on that case and all the other, all the other mortgage cases sealed. Fowler tries to convince her that he doesn't have the authority to do that, but she decides it's time to play hardball and says, yeah, you do. That's the way it's going to be: no tape until you get the file sealed. Clearly there is no honor among thieves.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [44:07]
Back at the Burke home things get interesting between Elizabeth and Mozzie.

Mozzie [44:14]
Whoa! Old investigation?

Elizabeth Burke [44:16]
Uh...More like peter's surveillance photos. I used to work as an assistant manager at an art gallery downtown. There was a theft, and Peter was the lead investigator.

Clinton Jones [44:25]
You were a suspect?

Elizabeth Burke [44:26]
I was a witness, but he wanted to know if I had a boyfriend.

Mozzie [44:31]
More like add you to the list of corporate, government — I mean, how charming.

Elizabeth Burke [44:40]
Anyways, he kept droning on about this Italian restaurant But didn't have the courage to ask me out, So I—well, I gave him a hint.

Mozzie [44:48]
Misappropriating FBI resources to follow a girl.

Clinton Jones [44:51]
That's been known to happen.

Mozzie [44:55]
The suit is sly.

Elizabeth Burke [44:56]
He's a bit of a bad boy.

Peter Burke [44:58]
What's going on here?

Mozzie [44:59]
Oh, we were just wrapping up for the night.

Peter Burke [45:02]
We? What are you, a team now? Will you be finishing up soon?

Mozzie [45:07]
I'll need a few more days. The downstairs is clear, but the upstairs is still a potential minefield.

Peter Burke [45:13]
So you're telling us that we shouldn't sleep in her own bedroom.

Mozzie [45:16]
Do either of you talk in your sleep?

Peter Burke/Elizabeth Burke [45:18]
No./He does.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [45:22]
[The Office] I want to comment on the photo. That's the photo of Elizabeth holding up the sign that says, I love Italian. Now, of course, this was during the conversation between Mozzie and Elizabeth, where Elizabeth was talking about how Peter had surveilled her when she was a witness during a robbery investigation, and how he kept droning on about an Italian restaurant, but didn't have the courage to ask her out, and so she gave him a hint by holding up the sign. As a fan of The Office, I have to wonder if this reference wasn't influenced by, or perhaps a nod to, The Office and the 2007 episode entitled, “Money”. In that episode, uh, Jim and Pam were talking and he impulsively grabs her, and kisses her, and says, yeah, you know, maybe we should try the new Italian place where the drive-in used to be. And in a talking head, Pam says, well, ‘Jim is just really passionate about Italian food’. And Jim in a talking head says, ‘yep, I'm very passionate about Italian food. In fact, I'm in love with Italian food’. So it, it's not an exact quote, but it's close enough and it’s Similar enough in context that makes me wonder if it wasn't some sort of a nod to The Office by the writing staff or the production staff of White Collar.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [46:51]
[Act 2 Continues] One of the things that this scene shows us is how quickly Elizabeth warms up to people and how easily she can win them over to her. After all, when Mozzie first arrived, she was clearly a bit put off by him, and uncomfortable about his apparently questionable nature, shall we say? And yet, here we see that the two of them have gotten to be fairly comfortable around each other. And we can see that it's, it's reciprocated from Mozzie. Elizabeth’s become comfortable with Mozzie, Mozzie’s become comfortable with her. After all, we know that Mozzie can be tactful with those, uh, who he considers his friends—like Neal—uh, we’ve, we've seen the times when Mozzie is trying to direct Neal, guide him and he does it rather gently, rather tactfully. But on the other hand, Mozzie can be rather lacking in tact when it comes to ‘the man’ and all those who are willingly working for ‘the man’, and pretty much anybody he doesn't trust, which is…okay…uh, pretty much everybody, I guess. Um, uh, he's when he's dealing with somebody that he doesn't really have a lot of respect forward, a lot of trust in or to have a, a relationship with, he can be blunt, he can be impolitic, he can be downright disdainful and contemptuous in how he says things, how he deals with those people. He doesn't, he doesn't, uh, he, he is not a person who hides his feelings toward people that he doesn’t, basically, he doesn't like, but over the course of the day, it seems that he has developed some sort of a friendly relationship with Elizabeth. Now I'm not going to say they're close buzzom-buddies at this point, but at least he does seem to be more accepting of her than he seemed to be when he started the day.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [48:55]
And when Elizabeth revealed how Peter was pursuing her, using FBI resources to pursue her and using the excuse of the investigation to pursue her, and more importantly, did a background check on her, Mozzie starts with one of his patented paranoid rants about ‘the man’ and how Peter probably just wanted to add her to the list of corporate and government and…then he stops. He sees the look that she's giving him, which is sort of a, uh, ‘no, Peter's not like that’, look, ‘what are you talking about’, look. But he stops. He has enough sensitivity for her and enough feeling for her and respect for her at this point that he doesn't carry on with it. So I think that says a lot about the, the developing relationship here between the two of them. And I think it says a lot about Elizabeth, because she has to be the catalyst for this because Mozzie is not the kind of guy that would just do this.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [49:53]
I also think that in some respect this might be a point of change in the Mozzie and Peter relationship. First of all, we already saw that Mozzie agreed with Peter about Kate. I think that was a little bit of a, I'm not going to say a tough pill for Mozzie to swallow, but it was kind of one of those, ‘oh, I can't believe we're actually agreeing on something here’. It was one of those types of things. And I think that on one hand, uh, Mozzie's reaction to Peter using FBI resources to surveil Elizabeth is about what we would expect from Mozzie. It's, uh, an attitude of, well, uh, that's about par for the course, for people in positions of power and authority. That's his normal attitude toward, uh, peop…people like Peter…government, people, ‘suits’, ‘the man’. And so when presented with this kind of behavior, that would be his typical reaction. But on the other hand, when he says, ‘the suit is sly’, I almost think that there is an underlying, somewhat begrudgingly, but still there, sense of appreciation and respect toward Peter. It's almost as if he recognizes that this was the sort of thing that Neal might do, or that Mozzie himself might do in pursuit of a woman or something of, you know, something of interest to them. And I think, as the scene progresses from start to finish, you can see the, the change of attitude reflected on Mozzie's face because he goes from, ‘oh, that's so typical of, of, of a suit’ look on his face to being almost almost admiration. So I, I really think this is a turning point for the, those two Peter and Mozzie.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [51:48]
I also think it's interesting about what this says about Peter. In past episodes, I've mentioned how I think Peter is basically a by the book guy and the sort of person who won't break the rules, although he isn't adverse to bending the rules a bit, he isn't adverse to somebody else doing it and benefiting from it. And yet here we learn that Peter basically broke the rules as he did in the pilot episode. As, as we saw there where he, where he used his position as an FBI agent to, uh, as Neal put it, stalk his wife. And here we see the same kind of thing, uh, in terms of basically stalking Elizabeth, although in a good way, I guess you could say, and using his position as an FBI agent to do something that really wasn't kosher. But by the same token, we've got to admit that it was even though it was for his personal benefit, it wasn't something that was financial or motivated by greed or selfishness or some sort of desire to engage in some sort of criminal activity as a result of his investigation or, or to further some sort of personal or political gain in the way that most people would think. He was doing this because he was interested in a woman.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [53:07]
And I guess in some regard we could say, okay, maybe he was doing it out of respect for Elizabeth, because she did say that Peter had told her that she wanted, he wanted to make sure she didn't have a boyfriend already. So I guess that's kind of weirdly respectful of Elizabeth and any potential boyfriend that she might've had because he didn't want to infringe on that, but it is, it is still kind of an abuse of his position authority. Although Jones does say, ‘hey, it's been known to happen’ and you kind of get the feeling that it happens maybe a whole lot more than just occasionally.

Wash [53:42]
And I also mentioned the sign that Elizabeth holds up that says, ‘I love Italian’ and her comment that she gave Peter a hint…This reminds us that Elizabeth, isn't afraid to be a little bit forward and a little bit aggressive when she wants something. And that's the same kind of behavior and attitude and go get it-ness that we saw in Flip of the Coin where she brought in her friend, Dana, whose husband was accused of, of smuggling and, uh, Iraqi artifacts and basically pushed—pushed really isn't the right word—uh, she, I guess basically the best word…I guess maybe the best way to say it is she set up Peter, put him in a position where he had to investigate this case, even though it really wasn't appropriate for him to take it on because it was already in the hands of other agents. And she did that. Now, granted, it was out of loyalty to her friend, but she did that. She pushed, she put Peter in a corner where he had no choice but to basically do it. So she's not afraid to assert herself…big time

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [54:51]
Back in the episode, Mozzie and Jones leave Peter and Elizabeth's house. And Peter and Elizabeth are camping out in the living room because Mozzie told them that's the only part of the house that's really been swept for bugs, and since apparently Peter talks in his sleep and the upstairs is still maybe not safe, hasn't been checked, so they really don't know, uh, there they’re stand down downstairs in the living room, camping out.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [55:19]
While they're talking. There is a knock on the door.

Peter Burke [55:23]
Hughes? Come on in.

Director Reese Hughes [55:25]
Peter. Evening, Elizabeth.

Elizabeth Burke [55:27]
Hello, Reese.

Director Reese Hughes [55:29]
Oh, you're camping?

Peter Burke [55:30]
Long story. What's wrong?

Director Reese Hughes [55:33]
I need to speak to Peter.

Elizabeth Burke [55:35]
Of course.

Peter Burke [55:37]
Thanks, hon.

Director Reese Hughes [55:39]
I'm not here in an official capacity. I'm here as your friend. OPR has launched an investigation into you.

Peter Burke [55:45]
Why?

Director Reese Hughes [55:46]
Did you take a bride from a judge?

Peter Burke [55:52]
I spoke with judge Clark.

Director Reese Hughes [55:53]
Did she offer you money?

Peter Burke [55:54]
Yes.

Director Reese Hughes [55:55]
Did you say no?

Peter Burke [55:56]
I went to her office, told her about our investigation and she responded with a bribe. I wanted to play it out. See where it led. You had done the same thing.

Director Reese Hughes [56:07]
OPR has got you on videotape. Fowler's presenting it tomorrow morning. I can't protect you, Peter.

Elizabeth Burke [56:26]
It's a serious, isn't it?

Peter Burke [56:29]
Yeah. Hughes could lose his job for what he just told me.

Elizabeth Burke [56:33]
This guy -- um, Fowler. He’s not going to stop?

Peter Burke [56:37]
No, I'll fix it.

Elizabeth Burke [56:42]
How?

Peter Burke [56:44]
I…I’ve gotta go.

Elizabeth Burke [56:46]
Don’t apologize.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [56:48]
So even though Hughes had asked Elizabeth to leave the room, she was just around the corner, listening in. And that's understandable. And when she comes out, she asks Peter, ‘this is serious, isn’t it?’ Now I'm pretty certain that she is talking about Peter's situation, the threat to his career, the possible threat of imprisonment. But Peter responds with, 'Hughes could lose his job for what he just told me’. Peter's a smart guy. He's not really a dense person. He's not really slow to, to figure things out. He's careful, he's methodical, but he's not, he's not a dimwit. So I'm pretty certain that he knows that Elizabeth was not talking about Hughes, was not talking about the fact that Hughes violated protocol, maybe violated the law. I don't think Peter is dumb enough to think that. I think he knows good and well that she was asking Peter about his situation, about their situation.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [57:58]
But instead he chose to focus on the risk that Hughes took in alerting himself. He clearly seems more concerned that good and innocent people will be collateral damage, than he is about his position and the threat to his wellbeing. And that really says a lot about Peter. I, like I said earlier, he's the kind of guy that doesn't want to see innocent people suffer for things that they had no reason to suffer for. And I think he sees this, uh, this as a situation here with Hughes…of Hughes potentially suffering for something…now, now granted Hughes did do something. He did something he shouldn't have done. He told Peter about it, but I think Hughes was put in a tough position and he made a tough decision, and it was one of those…it was one of those situations where any decision he made would have been wrong. Not necessarily legally wrong, but morally wrong, wrong in the sense that it's a violation of his sense of of honor, his code of ethics, his personal loyalties to somebody that he knows and trusts, and knows…even if he doesn't know in his head, he knows in his heart as being set up. And I think that's, that's really the kind of, of, uh, of innocence that I'm talking about here, and not necessarily just the fact that he didn't do something. So Peter is really more concerned about Hughes and the consequences of what might happen to Hughes, regardless of what happens to Peter, regardless of what happens with the case, regardless of anything else, he's concerned about Hughes.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [59:50]
I also think it's significant that Elizabeth didn't push the point and say, well, no, I wasn't talking about Hughes. I was talking about you. I was talking about your situation. I was talking about you being in trouble. She doesn't push that. And she also doesn't question Peter when he says he'll fix it.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:00:06]
Now, I'm sure that she can't see a way out and may even believe that Peter himself doesn't see a way out, but she doesn't make it worse by challenging him on what seems to be a false promise, a false hope, a false assurance by Peter that he'll take care of it, even though he doesn't really seem to have an answer how, she doesn't, she doesn't make an issue of it. I think that says a lot about her and her trust in Peter, and her loyalty to him.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:00:37]
Now, even though she doesn't seem to want to make things worse for Peter, she is still worried about him. She is still worried about the situation. Worried enough that she goes to Neal's apartment and appeals to him for his help.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:00:53]
I think it's interesting to note—I don't know that it has any significance, at least at this point—but I think it's interesting to note that she knows where Neal lives. To the best of my recollection she's never been there before, and I don't recall anybody telling her, that we saw, where he lives. Now I'm presuming that she knows where he lives because Peter told her, but we don't have any direct, or even indirect evidence of that. That's just a supposition. I suppose it's also possible that Neal told her at some point, because obviously Neal and Elizabeth have a very good relationship beyond the relationship that would exist because of Neal and Peter's relationship. Neal…Neal and Elizabeth over the, the past episodes have clearly developed a relationship that is based on the two of them separate from Peter, although that is one of the factors in their relationship. So it's possible that Neal told her at some point. Of course, there's no obvious reason why he would keep it a secret, but no evidence that he actually said that. But the, uh, apparent look of surprise on Neal's face when he opens the door and sees her—certainly he was surprised to see her there under the circumstances, but I think maybe it was more than that, I think he was kind of surprised that she knew where he lived at all.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:02:12]
[Act 3] After we see Elizabeth show up in Neal's apartment, we jump to the FBI offices where Peter is sitting at his desk, working alone. He reaches for his coffee cup and discovers it's empty, goes to refill his cup, but discovers that the pot is empty. As he's getting ready to make some more, he hears some noises, steps out of the break room and sees Jones walking into the office. He’s heard about the OPR investigation and he figured Peter might could make use of some extra hands. Peter says he was just about to make another pot of coffee, but Jones says, eh, you might want to make more than one. And at that point we hear, and then see, a half a dozen or so other agents come in and join Peter and Jones.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:02:55]
Of course, all of this Hughes breaking protocol to alert Peter, Jones and the other agents showing up at night, after hours and off-duty to help, illustrates the level of respect that the people in that office have for Peter. They've heard about the OPR investigation, even though they may not know the details they’re there, they're there to stand up for him. They've got his back. They're going to help him

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:03:23]
Back at Neal's apartment, Neal is incredulous at Elizabeth’s suggestion that he and Mozzie break into the office of a federal judge and steal a videotape. When Mozzie asks if she really understands how dangerous it is to break into federal property, a judge's chamber no less, Elizabeth's response is a little bit surprising, she says, you broke out of one.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:03:48]
Oh, of course, the simple explanation is that it's easier to break out of a place, such as the judges chambers, when the security systems are designed to prevent a break-in and not a breakout. And it's one of those things that is obvious once you know the answer, but it's not necessarily obvious when you don't know the answer. And so we really can't fault her for not knowing the answer and understanding the difference because after all, law enforcement and crime are not her area of expertise. Ultimately, Elizabeth plays the guilt card: ‘You owe him’. And it works. Neal agrees, but he's not very happy about it. And he seems to have no idea how to accomplish it. And he asked Mozzie,’ how are we going to do this?’ But Mozzie has an idea.

Mozzie [1:04:39]
Okay. Fowler is sending his private courier to pick up the tape at 8:00 AM. The courier truck will pull up to the front entrance and check in. When the driver steps out of the truck, I will stall him. I scouted the building. There's a security camera blind spot over here. So while I stall, [05:00]

Neal Caffrey [1:04:58]
I come out of the blind spot dressed as the same courier.

Mozzie [1:05:03]
Exactly.

Neal Caffrey [1:05:04]
All right. Any luck getting your hands on a uniform?

Mozzie [1:05:06]
I did the best I could.

Neal Caffrey [1:05:12]
Is this a park ranger uniform?

Mozzie [1:05:14]
Maybe.

Neal Caffrey [1:05:16]
With an iron-on?

Mozzie [1:05:17]
I couldn't find a thimble. Oh, don't -- don't forget this.

Neal Caffrey [1:05:21]
Oh. And a b.b. gun.

Mozzie [1:05:22]
Would you prefer a real one?

Neal Caffrey [1:05:24]
No.

Mozzie [1:05:25]
All right. Now, you go into the office as the courier and pick up the tape. Then you use this.

Neal Caffrey [1:05:31]
What's the refrigerator magnet supposed to be?

Mozzie [1:05:33]
A refrigerator magnet. But it's actually a high grade Neodymium magnet.

Neal Caffrey [1:05:38]
Which will erase the tape.

Mozzie [1:05:39]
Yes, thoroughly. Then you change clothes, hand over the newly blanked tape to the actual courier.

Neal Caffrey [1:05:46]
No one knows I was there.

Mozzie [1:05:47]
And everybody stays out of jail.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:05:50]
Mozzie isn't a hundred percent sure that the plan will work, but he's pretty certain it will. I'm not so sure. We have a problem.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:06:00]
[Video Tape erasure] First of all, let's talk about the magnet. Yes, Neodymium magnets are one of the most powerful type of magnet that you can get compared to other types. But that in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. There are different grades of magnet and the different grades have different levels of magnetic strength. Kitchen magnets are going to be at the low end of that scale.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:06:25]
That's the first problem. The second problem is size matters, particularly the size of the magnet in relationship to the size of the tape. Now it looks like the magnet is maybe about three eighths of an inch by a quarter of an inch. At this point, we saw the videotape that the judge took out of the camera, so we know that it's probably either a VHS-C format or a Mini DV fir…format. I really couldn't tell. However, Mozzie and Neal don't know this information. They don't know what the format of tape is. So it could be a Mini DV, which at this time was probably, would have been the most recent, um, standard tape that was used in camcorders, but it could have been a VHS-C, because that was a very popular format prior to the Mini DV being introduced, and there were also full-size VHS camcorders that were, were popular before the VHS-C’s were popular. They don't know that it was in a camcorder that was re…that was recording it. All they know is that there's a videotape. It could have been a hidden camera connected to a VCR somewhere. So it could have been any one of those. What that means is that they are dealing with a range of tape sizes from, at the low end being, uh, about two and two thirds inches by one and nine tenths inches—so almost three inches by two inches—clear up to potentially, uh, over seven inches by four inches.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:07:59]
Now, if you're familiar with the videotapes, you know that there are two reels inside the tape. One is the, the feed spool and the others to take-up spool. If you're going to erase the tape, you need to know where all the tape is at. They don't know that. It’s, it's going to be in an envelope, they’re going to pick up the envelope, the envelope is going to have the tape inside of it, they’re not going to be able to see it. The tape could be all on the feed reel. That's a good bet, but it's just a bet. It could be partially on, on the feed reel, partially on the take-up reel, which would mean that he would have to run the magnet over the surface of the tapes in the area of both of those reels. That's basically double the work and you're doing it blind because obviously you can't see through the envelope to see the tape and to know exactly where the tape is and how much is on each, uh, each of the reels. Because that's an important factor too, because the more tape there is the longer you have to expose it to the magnet.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:09:01]
And the magnet itself, because of its size in…introduces an even larger complication. The magnet is small compared to even the Mini DV tape. The problem is that magnets lose their strength the farther away you get from them. So a small magnet like that is not going to affect a very large area at a time. So you'd have to run the thing over the reel, completely in a circular motion to expose it to the entire tape, and you'd have to do it multiple times because it's going to take several passes to even just have any kind of effect on the recording at all, much less totally erase it. In fact, even with a…an electromagnet based bulky eraser designed to erase tapes, it can take several passes to effectively erase a tape. So a small refrigerator magnet is not going to do a good job of erasing it and probably wouldn't erase it, and at best might just damage it to the point where it's difficult to watch it, but it's not going to probably destroy it.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:10:10]
A further complication is that there are different magnetic formulations of video tapes or audio tapes, even for that matter. And higher quality tapes are more resistant to erasing and take higher levels of magnetism and longer exposure periods to erase them.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:10:25]
To give an analogy to illustrate the kind of situation we're talking about, it would be like trying to scrub a six inch pan with food encrusted on I using a tiny one inch square sponge. It can be done, but it's not going to be done well or quickly. It would be done better if you had a six inch sponge. But if that food was baked onto the pan, even the six inch sponge would not be as effective as a six inch pad of steel wool. And that's the, the kind of thing we're talking about: A small magnet would be the one inch sponge trying to clean the food and crusted a pan. But if it was a high grade tape, that's even more resistant, a one inch square sponge, isn't going to do anything to it. And that's, that's the type of situation that they're dealing with.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:11:19]
And they're trying to do this blind. I would say that realistically, the best they could hope for would be the, would be to damage the recording, and even that is a long shot I would say. I would have thought that a better solution would have been to just swap out the entire original envelope and tape with a fake. Uh, it would have been a little more complicated to accomplish that, but it would certainly have been a more certain way of accomplishing it. But that's just my assessment.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:11:49]
[Act 3 Continues] Anyway, let's get back to the show. Back in the FBI offices, Peter briefs the agents on how the scam seems to be operating and how the judge is the only one in the perfect position to pull it all off. And as he's talking and they're looking at the records on the computers, suddenly everybody's locked out. Peter decides that the only option is to go back to Herrera.

Peter Burke [1:12:11]
Officer Herrera.

Herrera [1:12:14]
What do you want, Burke?

Peter Burke [1:12:15]
I got close to Clark, and now I'm about to lose my job. You tried to warn me.

Herrera [1:12:20]
I didn't do anything.

Peter Burke [1:12:22]
If I'm going down, Clark's coming with me.

Herrera [1:12:25]
Look, whoever’s giving this judge cover, they won't stop at you. You understand that, right? They're gonna go after your friends, your family.

Peter Burke [1:12:33]
That's why it's got to stop. I need the evidence that proves she's dirty. I need to find the money that she got from the Sullivan loan.

Herrera [1:12:44]
I got shut down when I...When I requested a search warrant For the judge's chambers. Start there.

Peter Burke [1:12:53]
It'd be nearly impossible to get into But a great place to hide it. I owe you one. Thanks.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:13:01]
Earlier in the episode, we got the distinct impression that Herrera was a good cop, but that he made a questionable decision. Or a suspicious decision. We saw that he’s…really wasn't the kind of cop who would just roll over because somebody threatened his job, or his reputation, or maybe even his physical safety, because he had a very high clearance rate and you don't do that without rubbing people the wrong way and getting pressure brought down on you in some cases.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:13:30]
And yet he caved. And here, I think we see why. I think here, we learned that he allowed himself to be pushed into taking the bad deal of an early retirement, because he was trying to protect the safety of people around him. It's tough to fault him for that decision, but his approach and Peter's approach are clearly different. Herrera's approach was to go down, fall on his sword in order to secure the protection of his loved ones. But it's a tenuous security because the threat still existed. It was still out there. It was just blunted. Peter's approach is to not fall on his sword but go down fighting, trying to eliminate the threat once and for all based on the conviction and his ethics that you can't stop a threat by appeasing it.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:14:18]
Back at the courthouse, Mozzie's plan goes off, uh, apparently without a hitch. Now, since the pilot episode, we can see the Mozzie's acting has actually gotten better. Or at least the roles he's playing are more natural for him d do he does a better job of acting them. Uh, here he portrays the angry, frustrated and desperate character perfectly. It's only at the very end when he discovers—‘discovers’ in sarcasm quotes there—that he has the wrong Ray and tells Ray Hoffmeister, 'If you see Ray Collins, you tell him I'm coming after him’, does the quality of Mozzie's acting diminish somewhat. So I'm going to say apparently the acting classes that he's been taking haven't covered how to end a scene.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:15:03]
But anyway, as Neal's leaving the courthouse and after having given the package with the erased tape to the courier and forged the signature of the, uh, the judge's secretary on the paperwork, Peter calls Neal and tells him that he thinks that Clark has the money and the evidence they need stashed in her chambers.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:15:22]
[Act 4] After the conversation with Peter, Neal decides to take a quick peek around in the judges chambers. Now, while he's in there, Neal apparently realizes he's short on time and doesn't seem to really do a whole lot to search the office. Instead, he seems to concentrate his energies on making it appear that the office was searched.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:15:44]
Afterward, he meets Mozzie outside, sitting at a sidewalk table, which has a clear view of the window to the judge's chambers. Mozzie is using a long range style listening device to eavesdrop illegally on the judge and her secretary: illegally because the two participants in the conversation, the judge and the secretary, neither one of them have given consent to this. And at least one of them had to give consent to make it legal. This point becomes significant in just a little bit here. Mozzie narrates the conversation between the judge and her secretary to Neal, and we learned that the secretary is apparently in on what the judge has been doing when the judge tells the secretary, ‘we're compromised, I need to move everything’.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:16:32]
Back at the FBI office, Peter is in Hughes's office and they are waiting for Fowler. Hughes tells Peter that Fowler has requested a tap on Peter's phone. I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that once again, Hughes as stuck his neck out for Peter, because you don't tell the subject of a surveillance that they're being surveilled. It would be a serious breach of protocol and possibly illegal. Fowler arrives and tries to play the video tape only to discover that there's nothing on it. It's blank. So it does seem that the plan to destroy the so-called evidence worked. Fowler makes the excuse of, ‘well, they must have sent the wrong tape’. Hughes isn't overly aggressive in his tone of voice or attitude that we can see, uh, toward Fowler when, when Fowler says, ‘well, they must have sent the wrong tape’. But he does come across as pretty dismissive of Fowler when he says, ‘well, until you have the right tape, stop wasting my time’.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:17:33]
After Fowler leaves Hughes's office, and just before Peter stands and leaves, Hughes shoots Peter a look. It's a look of…knowing? Satisfaction? Um, conspiracy? Acknowledgment? I don't know. I can't really quite define or identify what the look is. He's very, he seems to be controlled and noncommittal in his look. But to me there's something underlying it, something…something as the old saying goes, there's something in his eyes that tells more than his face.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:18:13]
Neal is in the bullpen as Fowler and his goon walk out, and Peter comes up to Neal and asks if he had anything to do with Fowler's blank tape. Of course, Neal denies it. Peter says, well, thanks anyway. And Neal says, hey, I don't know what you're talking about, but you should thank Elizabeth

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:18:32]
 Peter and Neal discuss their next move. Neal tells Peter about the money being in the judge's office and her plan to move it the next day and where she's moving it to. And this is, this is frustrating to Peter because now he knows something is going to happen, he knows the details of what's going to happen and how it's going to happen and when it's going to happen., but he can't do anything about it because the evidence was obtained illegally. And this was the point I was making earlier is that Mozzie overheard all this by eavesdropping illegally because neither of the parties involved in the conversation had given consent to be recorded or, or listened to. And as I had mentioned in an earlier episode, that would taint any evidence that they obtained as a result of this…the, the illegal obtaining of the information here. So Peter can't do anything about it…or at least, Peter can't do anything about it. Peter realizes that he has a copy of a surveillance authorization that Fowler had obtained. Presumably this is the, uh, the surveillance, uh, authorization that, uh, Hughes was referring to, uh, to monitor, uh, Peter's phones, because we haven't seen anything to indicate that Peter had requested an authorization to monitor anyone's phone calls, and even if he had Fowler, wouldn't have been involved in it, and yet it's clear that it's Fowler's signature on the form as the requesting agent. But Peter realizes that maybe he can create a situation where somebody else can make the bust happen and do it legally. Even if it is a setup, even if it is a trap.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:20:15]
Now I want to talk about this form for just a minute or two. I looked closely at the form that is in that file folder that is sitting on Peter's desk. And much of it is indistinguishable. Uh, you can, you can see there's, there's printing on it, you can get a general idea of the vague shape and, and the length of the forms, you can see where there's areas that are the pre printed information on the form and the areas that you are supposed to fill out, but, but a lot of the detail just can't be seen because it's just too fuzzy. But from what I can tell, the information about who the target of the surveillance is—that’s the top portion of the form—a lot of that information is missing. It’s…you can see, like I said, you can see where the pre-printed information is requesting the name of the individual, technical details such as social security number, driver's license, address, uh, physical characteristics…all of that is…is supposed to be on that top portion of that form, and you can see that, but you can…there’s no data there. There's nothing filled in. Now, the reason for that may be contained in the body of the form. In that center section of the form the text reads that this order was issued under seal. Now I interpret that as meaning that all the information about the target of the surveillance has been basically redacted in the sense that it wasn't even included on the form. Now it's got to be included somewhere in the, in the file information, it’s gotta be included somewhere in the court records, but in this copy of the form that was issued back to the FBI with the judge's ruling and authorization for the surveillance, all that information has been omitted. Now, presumably the people who would know who the target of the surveillance is would include the agent who requested the surveillance, which as I said is clearly Garrett Fowler, because you can see a signature at the bottom—Garrett Fowler—the judge who authorized the surveillance and the director who approved the request, by the agent, uh, for that request to be submitted to the court for approval.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:22:35]
Now that signature, the director's signature—I looked at it and like I said, it's, it's very indistinguishable, but from what I can see, that is not Director Reese Hughes’s signature, which actually makes sense because Fowler does not work out of the New York office. He works out of the Washington, DC office. Hughes is not his director. His director is somebody else in the Washington, DC office. Fowler would not go to Hughes to get authorization for a surveillance. He would go to his director. So it would be his director's signature on the form.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:23:13]
But this brings up another problem. If Director Reese Hughes wasn't the one who signed the form….first of all, how did Director Reese Hughes know about the surveillance authorization? Secondly, how did he get a copy? Presumably he got a copy of the order and the, the entire file and left it on Peter's desk. So how did all that happen? I don't have an answer. My guess would be that probably the director of the Washington, DC office called Hughes and said, ‘hey, look, here's the situation. One of your guys is under surveillance by OPR, you can't say anything about it, but you know, as his, his superior officer, uh, we have a responsibility to let you know that this investigation is going on and that this is what's happening.’ I could see that happening. I could also see Hughes being kept in the dark, but somehow he found out about it, somehow he got ahold of the file, somehow he knew all this information was, was able to not only tell Peter about it, but left him the file on his desk. And again, I think this is a case of Hughes stepping out on a limb to help Peter as the target of a surveillance, Peter absolutely should not have access to this document. It's just not even open for discussion. He should not have access to this document. He shouldn't even know it exists. And as I said, he should not even know that he's the target of a surveillance order. So Hughes has just broken protocols, and rules and regulations, and possibly the law all over the place on Peter's behalf.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:24:49]
In the next scene, we see Fowler and his goon monitoring Peter's cell phone calls from inside of a van. Peter and Neal have apparently scripted a conversation designed to lure Fowler to the bank to where the judge is moving the money, but then the conversation moves to the music box. And as soon as it does Fowler cuts off the monitoring and the recording. A short time later, Fowler appears at the bank and confronts the judge believing the story that Neal and Peter fed him via the monitored phone call about how the judge was supposedly holding back the real videotape and trying to sell it for blackmail to Peter.

Garret Fowler [1:25:27]
Give me the tape.

Judge Michelle Clark [1:25:28]
What are you talking about?

Garret Fowler [1:25:29]
You think you can double-cross me? I know what you have in here.

Judge Michelle Clark [1:25:33]
I didn't double-cross you.

Garret Fowler [1:25:36]
It's a setup.

Judge Michelle Clark [1:25:44]
What's going on, Fowler?

Garret Fowler [1:25:46]
Don't say a word. Just let me handle this. What the hell do you think you're doing?

Peter Burke [1:25:50]
Assisting you. You're about to close a high-profile case. You're arresting Judge Clark on mortgage fraud—cash in hand. Unfortunately, this means no more pet judge, no more rubber stamps on your warrants.

Garret Fowler [1:26:03]
You have no authorization for this.

Peter Burke [1:26:05]
Of course I have. You gave it to me. This is your signature, isn't it? Because if it is, you're a hero. If not…Well, I'm not sure how to explain what you're doing here.

Garret Fowler [1:26:18]
Judge clark, you're under arrest.

Judge Michelle Clark [1:26:20]
What?

Garret Fowler [1:26:21]
You have the right to remain silent. I highly recommend you exercise that right.

Director Reese Hughes [1:26:28]
This is a big win, Garrett. Great work.

Peter Burke [1:26:33]
Yeah. Great work.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:26:37]
Now I have a problem following Peter's logic here. I'll admit it. I don't get it. I don't follow it. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe it's something that's obvious. I don't know, but I'm just not following his logic here.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:26:53]
When Fowler tells Peter, ‘you have no authorization for this', Peter holds up the surveillance authorization form and says, ‘well, of course I have. You gave it to me. This is your signature, right? Because if it , you're hero and if it's not, you're in big doo-doo’. As I said before, it's my belief that the form Peter had in the file on his desk—and presumably is the same form that he has with him there—was the authorization for Fowler to tap Peter's phone. And that if that was the case, that form was something that Peter shouldn't have access to. So I see this as a huge potential problem for Peter, because by pulling that form out, he's admitting that he has access, or was given access to something he wasn't supposed to be given access to.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:27:38]
And yet that's exactly what he does. He pulls out that very form and says that Fowler gave Peter authorization through that form to be there. How exactly did that , that he wasn't supposed to have access to or even know existed, how does that form give Peter authorization to be there? Or how exactly does it cause a problem for Fowler in explaining why he's there? I mean, after all Fowler, would have been there based on the information he obtained while monitoring Peter's phone calls. He overheard the conversation. Well, he had authorization to monitor the phone calls because we have the form there that was issued by a judge giving that authorization. And that authorization was valid. It wasn't a fraudulent authorization. And it was based on a complaint made by the judge and the videotaped evidence. Now, granted the videotaped evidence kind of turned into a bust in the sense that it no longer existed, but the judge's complaint would. And I would think that a complaint, an allegation of bribery or accepting a bribery made by a federal judge, would carry the day and be sufficient grounds to still justify the, uh, the authorization for the, the, uh, the cell phone monitoring. So there's nothing in the process leading up to Fowler's presence at the bank, which would seem to make his presence there invalid or even questionable. So I really don't follow what Peter's saying here, or his logic in how all of this is somehow worked out.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:29:13]
And of course it's even complicated by the fact that Peter has the form which essentially reveals, if you think about it, that Hughes gave Peter access to the form and the file, which I would think would likely put Hughes in Fowler's cross hairs for an investigation himself. And since Fowler seems to be able to initiate any kind of investigation against anyone he pleases, for any reason he can fabricate, and without any real justification, other than a personal vendetta, it seems that Peter exposed Hughes to a vendetta like that. And I just, I don't, I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic. 

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:29:50]
If somebody understands the logic of what Peter's saying about this, and it makes sense to you, please let me know because I, I, honestly, I, to me, this just doesn't make sense.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:30:04]
Back to the episode. Hughes shows up to oversee the arrest and I have to think that, given the history between Hughes and Fowler, that Hughes's compliment, ‘this is a big win Garret, great work’, might be less than genuine. I’m…I’m, I'm not certain one way or the other on that. Hughes does deliver the compliment in a seemingly sincere tone of voice. But the look on his face when he first walked up and as the judge was being handcuffed, and then as he delivers the compliment, it's almost a scowl. Granted, he would be disgusted at a judge misusing their position and authority. But I'm pretty certain that Hughes doesn't just dislike Fowler, he doesn't trust him. And he's suspicious of anything Fowler does and says, and that he might suspect that anything Fowler does and says, uh, may not be truthful. If that's the case, then presumably that scowl would be as much for Fowler as it would be for the judge. But I…I’m, I'm not, I'm not positive. Hughes initially was not the kind of guy that…he didn't win you over. Uh, he, in the early episodes, he came off as being not a likable guy and a guy who just…all he cared about was the rules and just kind of doing a CYA type approach to things. But in this episode in particular, I think Hughes has revealed himself to be a person of character. And certainly he's intelligent. So I, I can't help, but think that even if it's just instinct, he doesn't trust Fowler. He doesn't like Fowler and it's at best a measured congratulations when he tells Fowler, a great job, this is a big win. It’s said with a lot of reserve and uncertainty. Yeah, it's a big win, but what else is going on? I think there's some of that in Hughes’s…Hughes’s compliment there. I can't, I can't point to anything specific. It's just the feeling I've got.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:32:20]
Anyway, after the bust and after Fowler finishes his so-called interrogation of the judge, which I suspect was more of a, of a, ‘keep your mouth shut, or I'm going to make sure that it goes even worse for you than it's going right now’, there's some verbal sparring between Fowler, Peter and Neal. I see the situation between the three as being a little bit like the old saying about having a tiger by the tail. You can't risk continuing to hold on because if you do the tiger's going to attack you. But you can't risk letting go because if you do the tiger is going to attack you. And that seems to be their situation. So the three of them keep dancing around, kind of poking and prodding and trying to provoke the other into saying, or doing something, uh, making some sort of mistake that they can use in their attack of that other person while simultaneously trying not to make a mistake themselves, that that other person can use to make an attack on, on themselves.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:33:24]
Afterward, we see Peter and Neal meet with David Sullivan and his daughter, and give them the news. After that we see that Mozzie has finished a sweep of the Burke apartment for bugs. Mozzie tells them that their house is free of bugs, but the bigger danger and the apartment is the wiring. And he calls the apartment of firetrap.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [33:46]
It seems that Peter and Mozzie have achieved something of an understanding, or at least a truce, I guess maybe is a better choice of words. Uh, Peter tells Mozzie, thank you for cleaning the apartment and he genuinely seems sincere in his thanks. And Mozzie smiles when he, when he tells him thanks. And it's, uh, the smile of satisfaction and appreciation for the compliment, and it's, it's not the kind of response Mozzie had previously had when interacting with, or talking about Peter. But then of course, we see that it was really Elizabeth that was the catalyst for the change between the two: Mozzie trusts Elizabeth; Elizabeth trusts Peter; therefore, by extension Mozzie has a vicarious trust in Peter.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:34:45]
I think that's the point they've gotten to right now. And if my interpretation of all of this is correct, I think it supports the contention I've made in the past that Elizabeth has proven herself to be an essential element in Peter successes as an FBI agent. Although in this case, it's, it's in a different way than we've seen in the past, but still she is…without, without her, he would not be the successful FBI agent that he is today. I'll just put it that way.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:35:18]
As Elizabeth is walking Mozzie and Jones out, Peter and Neal are talking and Peter slyly reveals that he knows that Neal doesn't actually have the music box. Oh, he also gives Neal the message he got back from Kate: ‘see Robert’, which is a problem because Robert's dead.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:35:36]
So naturally they go to the cemetery where Kate's father, Robert Murrow is buried. Peter of course, is there, and so as Mozzie, who calls their all being there together a sort of a Kate intervention. So as he said earlier in the episode, he and Neal's keeper, which is how he referred to Peter, still seem to be in agreement about Kate. There are flowers on the grave that are obviously wilted, indicating that somebody had been there, but not at least for a few days. Now, in amongst the real flowers Neal finds an origami Lily. Peter asks Neal, if there's anything of significance, but Neal lies to Peter and says, Nope, there isn’t.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:36:21]
From the position that he standing, it’s hard to tell if, if Peter could have seen the origami piece or not when Neal spotted it, when Neal pulled it out of the, the collection of flowers that was on the grave. So it's possible that, that Peter didn't see that. So at this point, I don't know if Peter knows that Neal just lied to him or not, or if he just suspects that he lied to him, or if he's accepting Neals, Neals claim that there's nothing there. But as smart as Peter is, and as experienced as he is in dealing with Neal, I don't think he's going to totally trust that Neal is being a hundred percent truthful with him on that. I think Peter is probably smart enough to figure out that this wasn't for nothing. It wasn't a wild goose chase. There was something there, but Neal lied.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:37:13]
But Mozzie definitely did see it. And he asks Neal a flower means what he thinks it means. And Neal says, yeah, he thinks it does mean what Mozzie thinks it means.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:37:25]
[Closing] And what does it mean? We don't know yet because that's the end of this episode.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:37:30]
Now just a couple of reminders. You can help the podcast grow by telling a fellow White Collar fan about it. Also this podcast, like many others uses enhanced content. If you would like to check out that enhanced experience for this or any other podcasts that offers it, there are links on the website at www.WhiteCollaredPC.com to recommended podcast players that support these advanced features. Also on the website, you can find all the ways that you can contact me and the links to the resources that I've mentioned in the episode and anything I used as a reference in, in researching the episode. And you also find the show notes there.

Eric Alton-Glenn Hilliard [1:38:15]
I want to thank you for listening and ask you to please join me on the next episode as I share my thoughts on episode 10, “Vital Signs”. Until then take care, and God bless.