Every episode, legal expert Andrew and comic relief Thomas will tackle a popular legal topic and give you all the tools you need to understand the issue and win every argument you have on Facebook, with your Uncle Frank, or wherever someone is wrong on the Internet. It's law. It's politics. It's fun. We don't tell you what to think, we just set up the Opening Arguments.
The Case of the Uneasy Easement - T3BE45
It's OA Bar Prep with Heather! First we get the answer to last week's pizza predicament, and then we get question 45 - the case of the uneasy easement! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
23-10-2024 • 55 minuten, 39 seconden
Believe Absurdities, Commit Atrocities
OA1079 - An OA Spooktacular! But also a normal episode. We continue our ongoing series on fascism and the law with a fresh perspective on a familiar American legal horror story. Matt explains the terrifying legal context surrounding the 1692 Court of Oyer and Terminar which sentenced dozens of innocent Massachusetts colonists to hang for the extremely real felony of practicing witchcraft--and an unexpected defense strategy which could have spared them. What can the most terrifying run of wrongful executions in US history teach us about the dangers of governance by rumor, paranoia, and conspiracy theories 332 years later? SOURCES: In the Devil’s Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692, Mary Beth Norton (2003) “Salem Witchcraft Trials Research Guide,” Congregational Library (2024)(links to primary sources) 18 USC 611 (voting by aliens) Order granting preliminary injunction against Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia law amendment in Awad v. Ziriax et al, W.Dist. of OK (2010)(later upheld by 10th Circuit Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
21-10-2024 • 48 minuten, 41 seconden
Clarence Thomas Loves Killing Potentially Innocent Men
OA1078 - The Supreme Court is back from their vacation and is set to ruin a bunch of lives again! They start off with Glossip v. Oklahoma, another opportunity for the Republican ghouls on the Court to execute a potentially innocent man. But not to worry, Matt's Footnote Fetish(tm) will bring us wayyyy back into happy territory, as a favorite character from OA past is in the news in the best way! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
It's OA Bar Prep with Heather! We get the answer to last week's hot firefighter question, and then a new question involving pizza and promised payment! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
16-10-2024 • 43 minuten, 4 seconden
How Does Anyone Not See the Fascism
OA1077, Part 2 of Matt's MAGA is Fascist series. The MAGA movement has just taken a hard turn to the extreme right with openly fascist messaging from Donald Trump about “migrant crime,” “occupied cities,” and “bad genes.” We take a moment to absorb this alarming reality before Matt also explains how US immigration policy has always been the leading edge of American protofascism--and why Adolf Hitler personally admired it--before taking a look at Trump’s actual 2024 immigration promises and what keeping them would mean for us all. Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, James Q. Whitman (2017) “Trump Apparently Has a List of Things He Loves About Adolf Hitler,” Tori Otten The New Republic (3/11/24) “Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps, and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans,” Charlie Savage, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, The New York Times (11/23/2023) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
14-10-2024 • 52 minuten, 30 seconden
Congress: An Unnatural Disaster
OA 1076: In the wake of the devastation left by hurricanes Helene and Milton, we examine the state of FEMA’s Congressional funding. Has disaster relief actually become a “partisan” issue, or is this really just a Republican thing? How are these funds distributed, and why can’t Congress ever seem to fully fund anything? Matt explains why the current state of Congressional appropriations has him looking for flights to Denmark. Then: Why is Ron DeSantis’s Department of Health threatening to bring criminal charges against local TV stations airing pro-choice ads in support of Florida’s proposed Amendment 4? Finally, we drop a footnote to check in on the current state of the longest-running criminal trial in Georgia history and listen in on what the judge most recently assigned to the Young Thug RICO case has had to say to Fani Willis’s office about how they are handling it. “Disaster Relief Fund State of Play: In Brief,” Congressional Research Service (8/14/2024) “The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction,” Congressional Research Service (11/30/2016) Letter sent by Florida Department of Health General Counsel John Wilson to WFLA-TV dated 10/3/2024 Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
11-10-2024 • 50 minuten, 47 seconden
Are Hot Firefighters a Protected Class?
It's T3BE43! First, Heather gives us the answer to last week's question about the 6th amendment right to a jury trial, and then we get a fun question involving an issue not talked about enough: discrimination against hot firefighters. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
9-10-2024 • 45 minuten, 23 seconden
Enough Gaslighting - Trumpism Is Fascism.
Is it okay to call Trump a “fascist”? Is our democracy itself really on the line next month? And what might our legal system look like after a second Trump term? We look behind the headlines to begin to examine the nuances of these questions in this first of several planned episodes on the current state of the American right. The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton (2004) “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism,” Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, Journal of Democracy (April 2002) They Thought They Were Free (full text), Milton Meyer (1955) The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, Timothy Snyder (2018) Nothing is True and Everything is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia, Peter Pomerantsev (2015) Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
7-10-2024 • 53 minuten, 23 seconden
The Adams and Trump Cases Should Be Open and Shut. But Due to Awful SCOTUS Rulings, They May Not Be...
OA1074: We begin with a quick look at JD Vance’s cringiest moment during this week’s VP debate. Does the junior senator from Ohio know anything about immigration law--let alone vice presidenting? In our main story: Two of last term’s worst U.S. Supreme Court decisions surrounding “official acts” have been playing out in real time this week in two of the most important criminal prosecutions in the US. First, special counsel Jack Smith has just filed a monster of a brief in the DC case against Donald Trump for his responsibility for the events of January 6th, 2001. Why is this filing so unique, and what can we learn about the evidence against Trump and DOJ’s strategy going forward? Meanwhile, New York Mayor Eric Adams has filed a motion to dismiss his pending bribery charge on the grounds that bribery is pretty much legal now. Could the SCOTUS decision in Snyder v. US actually make a difference here? Finally, Matt drops a rare animal law footnote to explain how the fate of one adorable little beaver became the single most important issue facing the Massachusetts government this week. Video of JD Vance badly mansplaining immigration law during the VP debate Special counsel Jack Smith's Motion for Immunity Determinations (10/3/24) Eric Adams’s motion to dismiss Count V of his pending indictment (9/30/24) Petition to save Nibi the Beaver Governor Maura Healey’s late-breaking announcement re: the fate of Nibi the Beaver Snyder v. US (June 26, 2024) Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
4-10-2024 • 56 minuten, 59 seconden
That Time Trump's Lawyer Melted Down While Cross Examining Michael Cohen
Calling an audible here for reasons explained in the intro! Instead of T3BE this week, here is the very best day of Eli Bosnick playing Michael Cohen for Gavel Gavel. This was the infamous day of the Trump Trial when Todd Blanche start cross examination in the stupidest, weirdest way imaginable. Enjoy! Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
2-10-2024 • 2 uur, 13 minuten, 21 seconden
The Eric Adams Indictment Is Objectively Hilarious
Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod OA1073 - This week we are serving up the sticky Turkish delight which is the US Attorney for the SDNY’s 53-page speaking indictment against NYC mayor Eric Adams. Matt proudly explains why Boston is historically better at (among other things) corruption than New York before we get into the quid and the quo of it all. Finally, we review Adams’s weird career as a public safety advocate and self-published author and consider what’s next for this “true friend of Turkey.” U.S. v Eric Adams indictment (unsealed 9/26/24) Google Books excerpt of Don’t Let it Happen, Eric Adams (self-published, 2009) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
30-9-2024 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 13 seconden
The Completely Unnecessary Killing of Marcellus Williams
Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We begin by considering Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's claim that Israel's recent unprecedented operation against Hezbollah's pagers and walkie-talkies was a violation of international law. Was this one of the most sophisticated military intelligence operations in history or an indiscriminate act of terror? Did the US Supreme Court just allow Missouri to execute an innocent man? We consider the evidence against Marcellus Williams as well as the many legal and Constitutional issues with his conviction--and just how much blood enemy-of-the-show Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has on his hands in his rush to push forward an execution that the same DA's office which convicted Williams 23 years ago was desperately trying to stop. Finally, Matt drops a footnote to share his legal strategy for recovering 20 years of his digital life from the largest social media company on the planet. Do you really have to have (or be) a lawyer just to talk to Facebook's managers? Revised Statutes of Missouri Sec. 547.031 St Louis Prosecuting Attorney’s motion to vacate Marcellus Williams’s murder conviction Marcellus Williams’s Application for Stay of Execution to the U.S. Supreme Court (9/23/24) “How small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline,” Karissa Bell, Endgadget (6/20/240 If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
27-9-2024 • 49 minuten, 54 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE42
Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING The answer for T3BE41 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
25-9-2024 • 42 minuten, 22 seconden
How the 5th Circuit Won by Losing, with Steve Vladeck
Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We are excited to welcome Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck back to Opening Arguments for a look back at how the Supreme Court responded to the infamously unruly--and increasingly more extreme--Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its last term. How did the 5th “win by losing,” and why is there still cause for future concern even after SCOTUS reversed all but three of the eleven cases it took up from them? What kind of messages are the high court justices trying to send back to the 5th, and why aren’t they receiving them? Also discussed: Neil Gorsuch’s most recent not-quite-true statement, why the Supreme Court continues to tolerate the dumbest standing arguments on Earth, the 5th’s use (and abuse) of administrative stays, and what may or may not be wrong with Matt’s brain. Subscribe to Prof. Vladeck’s free weekly One First newsletter “The Fifth Circuit Won by Losing,” Steve Vladeck, The Atlantic (July 9, 2024) “30 Hours of SB4 Whiplash,” Steve Vladeck, LexisNexis.com (March 20, 2024) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
23-9-2024 • 49 minuten, 17 seconden
We Find John Roberts' Lack of Integrity Disturbing
OA1070 Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We begin today’s show with updates on two small victories for the power of art against the Donald Trump legal-industrial complex before turning to our main story: the biggest leak of internal communications in Supreme Court history. We review what we can learn about how Chief Justice John Roberts has been managing his (and the Court’s) public image from the extremely unauthorized release to the New York Times of memos that we were never supposed to read. Also, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has just eliminated three more counts from the Georgia RICO indictment against Donald Trump and the co-conspirators charged with their attempt to submit a false slate of Presidential electors to a federal court based on 134-year-old Supreme Court precedent. What’s going on here, and how safe is this indictment now? Finally in this week’s Footnote Fetish, Matt explains why some scruffy-looking nerf-herder is trying to convince a British court that his legal rights were violated by Lucasfilm’s digital resurrection of the deadliest villain in Star Wars history. How Chief Justice Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (9/15/24) Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee’s order dismissing defendants’ motion to dismiss RICO indictments against Donald Trump et al under the Supremacy Clause (9/12/2024) UK High Court’s judgment in Tyburn FIlm Productions Ltd v. Broughton et al If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
20-9-2024 • 54 minuten, 55 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE41
Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING The answer for T3BE39 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
18-9-2024 • 48 minuten, 49 seconden
The Surprising History of the Supreme Court Footnote
OA1069 Matt is doing a bit of blending of work and pleasure today, by sharing with everyone his footnote fetish. Let's all make this a safe place for Matt to share his more controversial proclivities. Joining us is the author of the book in the episode title, Peter Charles Hoffer. Professor Hoffer is Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia. Unlike the justices, Professor Hoffer is an actual historian. Listen and find out not only the fascinating footnote history, but also yet more reasons why originalism and "history and tradition" are not good ways for untrained amateur historians like Samuel Alito to do jurisprudence. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
16-9-2024 • 46 minuten
Trump’s Sentencing Delay Sucks but Is Probably the Right Call
OA1068 We begin with a quick review of some of the stranger legal issues raised in this week’s Presidential debate, including such mysteries as whether it is legal to murder babies upon delivery and the factual guilt of the Central Park Five 22 years after they were exonerated by DNA evidence and a third-party confession. In our main story, we review the chaos that the Supreme Court’s legalization of Presidential crime is already causing in Donald Trump’s hush-money case and discuss the relative merits of pushing his sentencing back until after the November election. Finally, Matt drops a footnote to explain an overlooked legal story in this week’s news involving a remarkably rare grant of a common defense motion. Filings from People v. Trump (NYCourts website) SDNY Judge Hellerstein’s order denying Trump’s notice of removal (9/3/24) Justice Merchan’s order continuing Trump’s sentencing hearing to November 26, 2024 (9/6/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
13-9-2024 • 52 minuten, 50 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE40
The answer for T3BE39 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
11-9-2024 • 35 minuten, 46 seconden
Adnan Syed Remains a Convicted Murderer
OA1067 After some of the strangest post-conviction twists in US legal history, the Supreme Court of Maryland has just reinstated Serial killer Adnan Syed’s conviction for the murder of his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee 25 years ago. We begin by revisiting Matt’s first-ever legal podcasting deep dive with Thomas on Serious Inquiries Only (SIO354) shortly after Syed’s conviction was initially reinstated by the Maryland Appellate Court last April. How accurate were his predictions for what Maryland’s highest court would do with this, as well as for the fallout which might follow if a new team of prosecutors were to be required to go before a new judge to actually present the evidence upon which they claimed to have brought the motion which freed Syed? Matt then briefly breaks down the Supreme Court of Maryland’s lengthy decision and explains why this is one of the strongest statements for victims rights ever made by any US state court. What are the odds of the prosecution now bringing a legitimate motion for a new trial? Why doesn’t Adnan Syed have to return to prison now that officially once more stands convicted of first-degree murder? And would we even be here at all if a man who has spent the last 25 years lying about a murder that he committed with his bare hands at the age of 17 hadn’t been introduced to a massive international audience by the only podcast your mother has ever listened to? Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in Adnan Syed v. Young Lee as Victim’s Representative (9/3/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
9-9-2024 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 3 seconden
Dave Rubin/Tim Pool - “Oops! I Got Paid $400,000 a Month by Russia to Do Propaganda! I’m a Victim!”
OA1066 Privyet, fellow citizens! We begin with a quick look at recent events following Jack Smith’s new superseding indictment in Trump’s January 6th case in DC. Why are Trump’s lawyers saying that Clarence Thomas “directed” them to file a motion to dismiss? And does DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan even care that this defendant who happens to be charged with four counts of trying to overturn an election is running for President at all? Then in our main story: In an indictment filed this week, the Department of Justice has charged two Russian state media operatives with funding an officially unnamed production company which is allegedly (but also definitely) Tenet Media, the home of mediocre anti-woke crusaders like Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, and Lauren Southern (among others). Thomas takes us through some of the most entertaining facts alleged in the indictment, including an extremely real investor who is definitely in Paris and not Moscow, the Tucker Carlson Russian propaganda video which was a little too much even for Tenet’s producers, and why anyone (including Tim Pool) could have ever believed that Tim Pool could have possibly been worth $100,000 an episode. Matt then breaks down some of the history of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and how this indictment sets a new standard for its enforcement in the 21st century--and what (and who) might be next. DOJ indictment of Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva (9/4/24) FARA on Facebook, Joshua Fattel, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (2019) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
6-9-2024 • 59 minuten, 28 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE39
The answer for T3BE37 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
4-9-2024 • 25 minuten, 37 seconden
State of New Mexico v. Alec Baldwin
OA1065 (This episode first appeared on Gavel Gavel Aug. 18th) Three years ago, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the set of Alec Baldwin's film, Rust. Alec Baldwin (in addition to armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed) was subsequently criminally charged with involuntary manslaughter. Recently, Baldwin's counsel brought a motion for dismissal and sanctions, and after a shocking day in court, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case with prejudice. Matt and Thomas walk through the events of that hearing and try to figure out what in the world the prosecutors were thinking. State of New Mexico v. Alexander Rae Baldwin III (Alec Baldwin) Defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Sanctions Under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 5-501 (pdf) Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Sanctions Under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 5-501 NMRA (pdf)
2-9-2024 • 2 uur, 22 minuten, 45 seconden
Despite Disastrously Stupid SCOTUS Decision, Jack Smith Fights On
OA1064 One angry Matt brings us two stories from this week’s news: After taking some time to think about the Supreme Court’s decision that former US presidents can’t be prosecuted for anything involving--or in any way touching on--”official acts,” special counsel Jack Smith has returned to a grand jury to obtain a superseding indictment in his DC prosecution of Donald Trump. How has he retooled the charges relating to the January 6th conspiracy? How much weaker will this case be without the many federal government witnesses who would otherwise have been called, and what happens next? Here’s something everyone should know: AGs in 16 red states are now taking a bold and principled stand against--and this is 100% true--traditional marriage. In a suit filed in a Texas federal court last week, these staunch defenders of our most cherished family values argued that there are at least 550,000 US citizens who should be exiled from not only from their states but from the United States for ten years because they married the wrong person--and that the very existence of these families is causing their states “irreparable harm.” Matt controls his unbounded rage just enough to break down one of the weakest and most inhumane challenges to immigration policy in modern history before calling out 16 people who should never hold public office anywhere again. Superseding indictment in U.S. v. Trump (filed 8/27/24) Implementation of Keeping Families Together (Federal Register, 8/23/24) Complaint brought by 16 Republican AGs to stop the Biden administration’s “Keeping Families Together” program (8/23/24) Donation page for Elad Gross, the only candidate in the MIssouri AG’s race who has not argued to a federal court in Texas that 9,000 of his own voters should be exiled from the United States for 10 years If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
30-8-2024 • 1 uur, 35 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE38
The answer for T3BE37 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
28-8-2024 • 34 minuten, 56 seconden
LAM1003: Over Ruled FREE PREVIEW
Hey folks! Wanted to give you all a preview of the bonus we just released. If you'd like to hear the full thing, please head to patreon.com/law and pledge at the 2nd tier or above! Thanks! Yay LAM is back and booker than ever! Neil Gorsuck wrote an incredibly bland book and Matt read it for some reason. Let's find out how much suck can a Gorsuck suck if a Gorsuck could suck suck. PS yes I said I'd bleep stuff on the main feed but since this ended up being a bonus I'm just marking it explicit instead.
27-8-2024 • 30 minuten, 59 seconden
The Future of Marriage Rights
OA1063 We are excited to bring you a fascinating conversation with Attorney Diana Adams (they/them) of the Chosen Family Law Center, a New York City-based non-profit which advocates for LGBTQIA and other non-traditional families of all backgrounds and descriptions. Diana is one of the nation’s leading advocates for rethinking how governments, courts, employers, and other institutions can accommodate committed relationships beyond the norms of romantic and/or sexual monogamy, including those involving more than two people, platonic partnerships, non-traditional parenting arrangements, and the many other ways in which people can choose to be in family relationships. Topics include (among many other things) the surprisingly racist history of the term “nuclear family,” developments in local and state law since the Supreme Court’s monumental recognition of full marriage equality in 2015, and what an immigration system not fundamentally based in a 1950’s conception of white heteronormative marriage might look like. Donate to the Chosen Family Law Center “Why US Laws Must Expand Beyond the Nuclear Family,” Diana Adams (TED Talk)(3/25/2022) “Three's Company, Too: The Emergence of Polyamorous Partnership Ordinances” - Harvard Law Review (March 2022) Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, Ryan, Christopher, Jetha, Cacilda (2010) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
26-8-2024 • 59 minuten, 19 seconden
Did Trump Just Violate the Logan Act?
OA1062 We begin with a brief update on Disney’s truly Mickey Mouse arguments in a Florida wrongful death lawsuit before discussing three other questionable legal claims from the week’s news: As expected, Hunter Biden has tried to use findings from a Florida federal court that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed to have his own pending federal tax charges dismissed in California. Can this creation of Aileen Cannon’s imagination survive in the wild? Speaking of the BIDEN CRIME FAMILY: we review the final report from the House Republicans in support of impeaching Joe Biden--for, well you know. Something. If anyone wants to get around to it. What are we even doing here? News this week that presidential candidate Donald Trump may have discussed delaying a Gaza ceasefire agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu until after the election has set off yet another round of online demands for prosecution under the Logan Act of 1799. What’s the deal with this 225-year-old law--and are we ever going to get around to actually using it? Order denying Hunter Biden’s motion to reconsider his previous motion to dismiss (8/19/24) House Republicans’ Report of the Impeachment Inquiry of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (8/19/24) “Non-Enforcement by Accretion: The Logan Act and the Take Care Clause,” Daniel B. Rice, Harvard Journal on Legislation (2018) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
23-8-2024 • 48 minuten, 59 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE37
The answer for T3BE36 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
21-8-2024 • 43 minuten, 52 seconden
A 9/11 Lawsuit No One Is Talking About Reveals Deep Saudi Complicity
OA1061 This week Matt shares a mostly under-the-radar story which has completely changed his understanding of the events of September 11, 2001. As the 23rd anniversary of the attacks approaches, a mountain of information emerging from lawsuits filed by 9/11 families has revealed far more extensive ties between both al-Qaeda and at least two of the hijackers to the Saudi government than were ever previously known. Why has justice taken so long? How does the law even allow this suit to proceed, and why did Congress have to override Barack Obama’s veto to allow it to move forward? Why has some of the best journalism about this lawsuit been from Golf Digest? And has the time come for a second 9/11 commission to re-evaluate everything we thought we knew about the day that changed everything? Complaint in Ashton v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (filed March 20, 2017) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/10/24) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/7/24) Blood, Oil and Golf: The emergence of LIV Golf highlights the Kingdom’s troubling influence Alan Shipnuck, Golf Digest (8/19/2022) New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity, Daniel Benjamin and Stephen Simon, The Atlantic (5/20/24) “The Declassified 28 Pages,” 28Pages.org 60 Minutes excerpt which includes Omar Al Bayoumi’s 1999 video of the US Capitol (6/20/2024) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
19-8-2024 • 48 minuten, 50 seconden
At Least One Disney Lawyer Needs to Be Launched Into the Sun
OA1060 This week Matt breaks down four very different legal actions: 1. Donald Trump is suing the United States--yes, the same United States that he is running to be the President of--for $100 million based on the FBI’s alleged violation of the Florida common law tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” in executing a valid search warrant on Mar-A-Lago two years ago. Is Trump just spiking the legal football after his big win in front of federal judge Aileen Cannon in Jack Smith’s documents case, or is there actually something worth talking about here? 2. Is the Walt Disney Corporation actually arguing that signing up for a 30-day trial of its Disney+ streaming service protects them from the tragically fatal consequences of negligence at a restaurant in its Disney Springs shopping center? Could that really be a thing that licensed attorneys wrote down, printed, reviewed, signed, and filed with a court? We consider what might be one of the most bizarrely evil defenses ever raised in a wrongful death suit. 3. Soul singer Isaac Hayes’s family has joined the dozens of artists who have spoken out against their music being used at Trump rallies, issuing a cease-and-desist letter to the campaign alleging that it has used Hayes’s song “Hold On! I’m Coming” at least 134 times even after being asked to stop. To what extent do artists have “moral rights” under US intellectual property law, and what alternatives are available to them when they don’t? We riffing on a particularly interesting failure to harmonize copyright and antitrust law. 4. French authorities have announced that they will investigate claims of cyberbullying against Olympic boxing champion Imane Khelif, a ciswoman from Algeria who was harassed online by J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and many more of the world’s finest people with completely baseless claims that she was not a biological woman. We debate the merits of this uniquely European approach to criminalizing speech and marvel at the unmatched powers of TERF ideology to rot the human brain (and soul). Hayes Enterprises cease and desist letter (8/11/2024) BMI’s “Political Entity Licensing Terms” “License to Rock,” Leah Scholnick, Cardozo Law Review (4/7/2022) Doctor dies after eating dinner at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant at Disney Springs, lawsuit alleges | FOX 10 Phoenix (2/26/24)(includes full text of plaintiff’s complaint)
16-8-2024 • 49 minuten, 17 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE36
The answer for T3BE35 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
14-8-2024 • 33 minuten, 57 seconden
You Can Run for Office. Yes, You! Just Ask RI Sen. Meghan Kallman!
OA1059 This week we welcome Rhode Island state senator Meghan Kallman for a conversation about the power of state lawmaking and ordinary people in elected office. Meghan is a professor of sociology at UMass Boston whose work in both the theory and practice of how people organize led her to a parallel career in politics. As the Democratic Presidential ticket coalesces around a woman and (for the first time since 1980!) a non-lawyer, we discuss the unique challenges which women still face in US politics at every level as well as what it is like for someone with no legal training or no political experience to run for and hold elected office. Also: How can state and local governments make progressive change even when the federal government can't or won't act? What is it like for someone with no legal training to write laws? And why is Rhode Island the last state in the Union to take an entire day off to celebrate the US victory over Japan? Meghan Kallman’s campaign website The Conceivable Future, Meghan Kallman and Josephine Ferorelli (2024) “Sousaphone vs the KKK,” Christian Science Monitor (7/23/15)
12-8-2024 • 51 minuten, 30 seconden
Is It Illegal To Make Elon Musk Sad
OA1058 We begin with Neil Gorsuch’s recent appearance on Fox News. How normal is it for a sitting Supreme Court justice to go on Fox News, and did Gorsuch really just threaten the Biden administration over its relatively minor court reform proposals? In our main story, we break down two major antitrust suits from the past week: Elon Musk’s ridiculous claim that corporations which refuse to advertise on a social media platform which has failed to regulate neo-Nazi and animal abuse content are violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and District Court judge Ahmet Mehta’s extremely reasonable findings that Google’s anticompetitive practices are in violation of Section 2. Also, Matt has some nice things to say about Richard Nixon. White House announcement on Biden court reform proposals (7/29/24) About GARM (WFANet.org) "GARM's Harm" report from the House Judiciary Committee (7/10/2024) Complaint in X v. GARM et al (8/6/2024) “Is Google Getting Worse? A Longitudinal Investigation of SEO Spam in Search Engines” J. Bevendorff and M. Wiegmann, et al., Leipzeig University (2024) Judge Amit Mehta’s full ruling in US v. Google (8/5/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
9-8-2024 • 51 minuten, 31 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE35
The answer for T3BE34 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
7-8-2024 • 30 minuten, 4 seconden
Suing the CIA Over MKUltra
OA1057 We’re giving ourselves a break this week from Trump, the Supreme Court, and all things 2024 to indulge in one of Matt’s all-time favorite subjects: CIA mind control experiments! In this extra-carefully-researched episode, Matt breaks down the history of the federal government’s MKULTRA program to fund research in brainwashing, mind control, and LSD on unsuspecting U.S. and (for some reason) Canadian citizens, as well as the inherent legal issues in trying to sue the CIA for something you can’t remember and for which most evidence has been destroyed. Why was the CIA funding a sadistic mad scientist in Montreal, and is there any hope of justice for the families of his victims today? BOOKS Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control , Stephen Kinzer (2019) The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: the CIA and Mind Control, John Marks (1979)(link goes to full text on CIA website) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government: David Talbot (2016) CHAOS: The Truth Behind the Manson Murders, Tom O’Neill (2020) LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Orlikow v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 77 (D.D.C. 1988) CIA v. Sims :: 471 U.S. 159 (1985) “PROJECT MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program of Research in Behavioral Modification,” (transcript of joint Senate hearing)(8/3/1977) Judgment dismissing former Deputy U.S. Marshall Wayne Ritchie’s claims against the CIA in Ritchie v. U.S. (N.D. CA 2005) ARTICLES ANATOMY OF A PUBLIC INTEREST CASE AGAINST THE CIA, Joseph Rauh and Jim Turner, Hamline Journal of Law and Public Policy (Fall 1990) MK-ULTRA: Quebec high court says U.S. has immunity in Canada | Montreal Gazette (10/3/23) CIA Denies Conspiracy Theory That It Used MKUltra on Trump Shooter, Gizmodo.com (7/28/24) “After Learning of Whitey Bulger LSD Tests, Juror Has Regrets,” PBS (2/18/2020) “Before He Was the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski was a CIA Mind Control Test Subject,” Washington Post (6/11/2023) PODCASTS & DOCUMENTARIES Brainwashed, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2024) Madness, WBUR (2020) The Sleep Room: CIA-funded experiments on patients in Montreal hospital (1998) - The Fifth Estate (CBC) Wormwood, Errol Morris, Netflix (2017)
5-8-2024 • 50 minuten, 23 seconden
The SCOTUS Embarrassment That Was the EMTALA Case
OA1056 As the Trump campaign celebrates the “demise” of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, we check in on reports of its death to see just how exaggerated they might be. Does it even matter that the ultra-conservative push to remake the personnel and policies of the federal government run by people who talk like Bond villains is (allegedly) no longer in the policy game? And how did things get to the point that these people were too extreme for Stephen Miller? We then discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision to dismiss Moyle v US without a decision on the merits of Idaho's attempts to criminalize nearly all abortions. Why did the conservative justices rush to jump into this case only to find that they never should have done that? What can we learn from this week's unprecedented inside leaks about how this decision? Finally, a quick check on the state of Donald Trump's gag order and Nikki Haley's weird attempt to get her name out of her treacherous former SuperPAC's collective mouth. 42 USC 1395dd (relevant EMTALA provision) Idaho “Defense of Life Act” St Luke’s Medical System’s amicus brief in Moyle (detailing specific harms to pregnant people of allowing Idaho’s so-called “Defense of Life Act” to go into effect) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
2-8-2024 • 50 minuten, 40 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE34
The answer for T3BE33 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
31-7-2024 • 32 minuten, 37 seconden
Rap on Trial
OA1055 Charis Kubrin is a professor of criminology at University of California Irvine whose extensive analysis of rap lyrics has provided the basis for her expert testimony in cases around the U.S. in which an artist’s work has been used against them as criminal evidence. Professor Kubrin joins us to explain what brought her to this subject, the history of “rap on trial,” and her ongoing work with the defense bar to push back against this problematic and almost inevitably racist practice. Charis E. Kubrin’s faculty bio at the UCI School of Social Ecology Rap on Trial Legal Guide (2nd Edition), Jack Lerner & Charis Kubrin the Rap on Trial website If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
29-7-2024 • 51 minuten, 46 seconden
Setting the Record Straight on Kamala's Record
OA1054 As the Democratic Party comes together around presumptive nominee Kamala Harris after Joe Biden's surprise exit, we take another look at the Vice President”s career and political record. Is she any more of a “cop” than any other career prosecutor? How will history remember this VP? What might we expect from a President Harris that we wouldn't from a second Biden term? And why did Matt just get kicked out of a library in Rhode Island? We take on all of these questions and many more in this rapid response episode, with much more to come as this unprecedented race continues to develop. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
26-7-2024 • 58 minuten, 4 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE33
The answer for T3BE32 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
24-7-2024 • 37 minuten, 52 seconden
Biden is OUT! Republicans Cry Foul and Lie About the Law
OA1053 We had a different episode ready, but this development warranted an emergency episode. Matt answers many of the most pressing questions about what happens next. Can Harris get on the ballot? Does she get access to the funds Biden had? What happens with Biden's delegates? And is it illegal to drop out of a presidential race... for some reason... as many Republicans are saying? If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
22-7-2024 • 42 minuten, 39 seconden
I Think This Judge Cannon Might Not Be on the Level
OA1052 CAAAANNNONNNNNBALLLLLL! Judge Aileen Cannon has just made a major splash in the Trump trials by dismissing the entire federal classified documents case based on her findings that special prosecutor Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. We try our best to pretend that this 93-page decision is a regular order released by a normal judge, at least for a few minutes, before moving on to ask: Should we have seen this coming? Does this explain Clarence Thomas’s weirdly unprompted thoughts on the same subject in the Trump immunity case earlier this month? What happens next, and is there any chance it could happen without Fort Pierce, Florida’s best, worst, and only federal judge? BONUS PATRON CONTENT: Patrons will also hear us listen to the New York Times rub its collective chin as its The Daily podcast considers Aileen Cannon’s mysterious ways and unknowable motives. Aileen Cannon's 93-page order granting Trump ‘s motion to dismiss 28 U.S. Code § 533 (Investigative and other officials; appointment) United States v. Nixon :: 418 U.S. 683 (1974) What We Can Learn from American History's First Special Prosecutor, TIME (1/5/19) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
18-7-2024 • 57 minuten, 25 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE32
The answer for T3BE31 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
17-7-2024 • 38 minuten, 1 seconde
"Don't Say Gay" Bills Must Violate the 1st Amendment... Right? RIGHT?!
OA1051 In the wake of... one of the many moral panics likely started by Chris Rufo, many "Don't Say Gay" laws were passed. I don't know about you, but I had just figured these had to be unconstitutional. After all, we have freedom of speech, right? There's an Amendment about that, right? Well....... Returning to the show to take us through this is the best namer of law review articles, Caroline Mala Corbin. Caroline is a law professor at the University of Miami, focusing on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, reproductive justice, and the principle of equality that should run through it all. Check out her paper "The Government Speech Doctrine Ate My Class" here! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
15-7-2024 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 19 seconden
They Finally Killed Chevron Deference
OA1050 Legal podcaster Charles Star (ALAB, Mic Dicta) joins to share his administrative law expertise as we consider the end of the Chevron doctrine and what comes next. Why is everyone so worked up about the overturning of a ruling reached by a conservative SCOTUS at the behest of Ronald Reagan, Neil Gorsuch's mom, and one of the worst polluters in world history? Why are immigration lawyers (including Matt) quietly celebrating the end of deference to administrative agencies? And how might a lesser-noticed decision from the last day of the Supreme Court’s term fuel a new era of challenges to administrative regulations? Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (6/28/24) Corner Post v. Board of Governors (7/1/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
12-7-2024 • 56 minuten, 41 seconden
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE31
The answer for T3BE30 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
10-7-2024 • 55 minuten, 17 seconden
No Matter How Stupid And Evil You Think Qualified Immunity Is, It's Worse
OA1049 Qualified Immunity is insane. It's one of several ways that police evade accountability for truly monstrous acts. As unpleasant as that is, we're fortunate to have an amazing guest to take us through the history of it, as well as a new case that may be cause for optimism! From her UCLA Law bio: Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy. She teaches Civil Procedure and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. She received UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015, and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Professor Schwartz is one of the country's leading experts on police misconduct litigation and the author of Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable (2023). If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
8-7-2024 • 54 minuten, 39 seconden
It Is Impossible to Be Too Alarmed About the Immunity Decision
OA1048 This decision is absolutely outrageous. It is in the hall of fame of worst Supreme Court Decisions in our nation's history. It's that bad. As such, we recorded a ton, there is yelling involved. And cursing. And we even did an extra length patron episode to answer some of your questions. Neil Gorsuch recently promised that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity would be one “for the ages,” and Chief Justice John Roberts has certainly delivered here. In this special episode recorded on the 248th anniversary of history’s most famous rejection of monarchical tyranny, we review the historical context and (alleged) legal foundations of Trump v. U.S. (July 1, 2024). How much power has the Supreme Court just given future presidents? Are the unusually stark warnings of the authoritarian consequences of this decision from the liberal dissenters as “disproportionate” as Roberts claims, or are they exactly proportionate to the broad protections against investigation and prosecution which it seems to provide? Matt shares his perspective from nearly two decades of working with people seeking asylum from failed (and failing) democracies, and we close with our hopes for a better American future. U.S. v. Trump (July 1, 2024) U.S. v. Nixon (July 27, 1974) Trump’s motion to dismiss DC federal charges on the basis of presidential immunity Judge Chutkan’s decision denying Trump’s motion to dismiss DC Circuit’s unanimous decision affirming denial of Trump’s motion to dismiss If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
5-7-2024 • 58 minuten, 15 seconden
Young Thug Contempt BS Part 2 (ft. Ashleigh Merchant!)
OA1047 We continue our coverage of the contempt hearing against Young Thug attorney Brian Steel with a very special guest! Attorney Ashleigh Merchant is not only the president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, but most recently known for her work in seeking to recuse Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis from the Trump RICO case. Attorney Merchant provides her impressions of the YSL RICO trial and why GACDL’s has to have a special “strike force” to defend attorneys in contempt matters before giving us the play-by-play on her cameo appearance in the dramatic conclusion to the hearing which we covered in Part I yesterday. YSL Trial Day 88, Fox 5 Atlanta (full video) Full 56-page transcript of ex parte hearing with Judge Glanville, Fulton County DAs, and witness Kenneth Copeland held June 10, 2024 Ashleigh Merchant’s bio page from the Merchant Law Firm website
4-7-2024 • 57 minuten, 21 seconden
The Young Thug Contempt BS Was Even Worse Than We Knew
OA1046 Bit of a special schedule this week, for reasons that I over-explain in the first 5 minutes of this episode. But it's good reasons! Hope you enjoy. This is a part 1 of an extremely good Gavel Gavel episode. If you are a Gavel Gavel patron, you can listen to the full version in that feed now! Otherwise, stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow, with special guest Ashleigh Merchant!
3-7-2024 • 56 minuten, 8 seconden
I... Hate the Supreme... COURT!
OA1045 As the Supreme Court gives itself an extension on its homework, we review two of its most recent completed assignments: Department of State v. Munoz (6/21/2024) What rights do US citizens have to object to the arbitrary denial of a spouse’s immigrant visa? Matt explains the arbitrary perils of the consular visa processing system and Amy Coney Barrett’s dangerously misguided search for deeply rooted history and tradition in an immigration system deeply rooted in white supremacy. We also discuss Justice Sotomayor’s warning in dissent about Snyder v. U.S. (6/26/24): In fantastic news for anyone looking to give or receive a bribe, a 6-3 conservative majority has effectively read any penalties for paying a public official off after they have given you what you wanted out of federal law. Brett Kavanaugh reminds us what he was put there for by mischaracterizing the facts, finding entirely new meanings for the word “rewarded,” and worrying way too much about soccer moms inducing violations of 18 USC 666 with gift cards and edible arrangements. We close out with a quick review of Steve Bannon’s desperate attempts to stay out of prison, and the concerning commitments House Republicans have recently made to stand behind his argument that the entire January 6th committee was invalid. Finally for PATRONS ONLY: we read and discuss the best bits of Justice Jackson's very good Snyder dissent! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
28-6-2024 • 49 minuten, 55 seconden
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE30
The answer for T3BE29 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
26-6-2024 • 44 minuten, 10 seconden
What on Earth Is Happening in the Young Thug Trial?
OA1044 Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has used Georgia’s RICO statute against everyone from public school teachers to environmental protesters to a former President of the United States. This week we examine Willis's massive 88-page RICO indictment of rapper Young Thug and 27 other associates of YSL, the Atlanta record label which her office alleges is also operating as a violent street gang. Matt shakes his geriatric millennial first at the scourge of mumble rap before breaking down what has already become the longest criminal trial in Georgia history and the injustice of prosecutors using an artist’s lyrics against them in court. Finally, we break down this month’s most listener-requested story: judge Ural Glanville’s inexplicable decision not only to secretly meet with a prosecutor and one of the state’s most important witnesses without defense counsel present, but to sentence Young Thug’s attorney to 20 days in jail simply for noticing that he wasn’t supposed to. What is going on here, and could there possibly be a good explanation for it? Georgia’s RICO statute RICO Indictment of “Cop City” opponents (8/29/2023) YSL Indictment (5/9/22) Young Thug’s NPR Tiny Desk Concert (7/27/2021) GA Code Rule 2.9 - Assuring Fair Hearings and Averting Ex Parte Communications Breaking Down the Origins of Mumble Rap (video), Genius.com If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
24-6-2024 • 53 minuten, 59 seconden
Did Biden Do a Good Immigration Thing?
OA1043 This week: good immigration news! The Biden administration announced on June 17th that it will be moving forward with a plan to offer a pathway to citizenship for immigrants married to U.S. citizens who have been in the country for more than 10 years through a special “parole-in-place” program. Why does current U.S. immigration law make it so difficult--and sometimes impossible--for so many people who are in loving long-term relationships with U.S. citizens to “do it the right way?” Matt breaks down the legal and historical context of the most important executive action on immigration policy since Barack Obama created the DACA program in 2012. We then speak with Emily, a U.S. citizen whose husband stands to directly benefit from this policy, for a firsthand account of the realities of living in immigration limbo. Official White House announcement of the new parole-in-place program (June 17, 2024) Extreme Hardship Considerations and Factors (USCIS Field Manual) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
21-6-2024 • 49 minuten, 30 seconden
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE29
The answer for T3BE28 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
19-6-2024 • 44 minuten, 22 seconden
A Critical Race Theory Analysis of Critical Race Theory Bans
OA1042 Several years ago, Christopher Rufo created a bogeyman that rallied the Right across the United States to seek bans in educational environments of "divisive concepts" such as Critical Race Theory. Since the entire effort was obviously... racist, the CRT bans themselves are just perfect for a CRT analysis, and Caroline Mala Corbin is here to lead us in a classic OA Deep Dive! Caroline is a law professor at the University of Miami, focusing on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, reproductive justice, and the principle of equality that should run through it all. Be sure to check out the full article that was published recently in the UC Irvine Law Review! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
17-6-2024 • 56 minuten, 8 seconden
Harvey Weinstein's NY Conviction Was Overturned. So Who Effed Up?
OA1041 NY defense attorney Liz Skeen is here to break this decision down. Did the Court mess it up? Or is something more complicated and unexpected happening? The answer might surprise you. Content note/trigger warning. For exactly what you'd think. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
14-6-2024 • 51 minuten, 33 seconden
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE28
The answer for T3BE27 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
12-6-2024 • 35 minuten, 17 seconden
Hunter Biden's Trial Is Everything MAGA Thinks The Trump Trial Was
OA1040 We begin in Florida with yet more of Judge Aileen Cannon's efforts to delay Donald Trump's federal case, including a demand for Jack Smith to be nicer to Trump's lawyers and her decision to allow non-parties to join the fun and make arguments in an upcoming hearing about whether Smith was properly appointed to prosecute Trump at all. Hunter Biden's federal trial began this week in Delaware on charges relating to his purchase and possession of a gun which he owned for 11 days in 2018. Matt breaks down the history of this investigation, the charges, and how this case ended up going to trial before a quick time jump in which we return to review what we know one week into these proceedings. How does this trial compare to the one which concluded a week earlier with the conviction of a former President Donald Trump--and would these charges ever have been brought against someone whose last name wasn’t Biden? 11th Circuit order instructing the clerk's office to stop taking complaints about Judge Cannon Mar-A-Lago search warrant Jack Smith's Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release Quick Facts on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) Firearms Offenses (US Sentencing Commission) Delaware indictment of Robert Hunter Biden (gun charges) “How to Think About the Hunter Biden “Laptop,” Marcy Wheeler (6/6/2024) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
10-6-2024 • 57 minuten, 59 seconden
Biden’s Border Action - An Objective, Nuanced Explainer
OA1039 Trump’s prosecution for election interference in Georgia was just stayed by the Court of Appeals, leaving no chance that this trial will proceed before November. What happened, and how unexpected was this delay? We investigate. We then turn to our main story: Biden administration’s executive actions to “shut down the border” and close the door to asylum for many people who would otherwise be eligible. Matt explains what’s actually going on here and how much of it was already in place before we consider the practical and political consequences of Joe Biden effectively carrying out the border bill which Trump bullied Republicans not to pass. We end by spending a few minutes discussing a recent opinion from Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, who has very strong--and extremely appropriate--opinions about fonts. Georgia appeals court order staying Trump’s criminal trial “A Proclamation on Securing the Border” (June 4, 2024) Interim Final Rule (“Securing the Border”)(June 4, 2024) Attorney Taylor Levy’s donation page If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
7-6-2024 • 54 minuten, 32 seconden
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE27
OA's Official Bar Tutor returns! We've got the answer to Question 26, but with Heather's signature style where we're going to learn a whole lot along the way. Then, in Question 27, we've got some Constitutional Law! Be sure to play along by submitting your answer! Use #T3BE, or play on reddit.com/r/openargs!
5-6-2024 • 44 minuten, 55 seconden
Supreme Court To Decide If Being Homeless Can Be A Crime
OA1038 Today we're joined by Vox Senior Correspondent, Ian Millhiser! In his reporting, Ian focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. Ian gives us an excellent and comprehensive breakdown of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case that could be decided any day now. As usual with this Court, the question is: How scared should we be? Check out Ian's excellent article and other reporting here. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
OA1037 THE JURY IS IN! Opening Arguments is coming at you LIVE AND UNEDITED today as we react in realtime to the announcement of the verdict in People v. Trump--conveniently timed for exactly the time that we had already planned to record this week! We also take a look at the lengthy closing arguments from both sides and Matt answers patron questions about some of New York’s more unusual trial practices before getting into what we can expect next. We finish out the fun with Thomas’s dramatic reading of Samuel Alito’s indignant, mendacious, and entirely unsolicited response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s demands to speak with the Supreme Court’s manager and take a moment to appreciate his full-throated defense of a woman’s absolute right to choose (flags). Jury instructions in People v. Trump People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585 (1987)(providing jury with written excerpt of jury instructions was reversible error) Alito’s letter to Senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse dated May 29, 2024
30-5-2024 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 33 seconden
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE26
Heather is back for another bar question! Yay! Except... it's real property... NOOOOO We only do the question on this one, since we did both the Q and A last time. So, this is just a short little uncharged episode to get us back on track. It also allows me to catch up on Patron thanks! Note: two new Gavel Gavels are out, with more coming very, very soon! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
29-5-2024 • 20 minuten, 6 seconden
What an Alabama Judge Is Doing to Some LGBTQ Lawyers Is Horrifying and Needs a Spotlight
OA1036 Two great stories for you today - following OA1034 on how much Alito sucks, the Law Dork himself, Chris Geidner, is on to discuss the flag habits of Samuel Alito, as well as the exclusive story he broke regarding Alito’s stock activity immediately after Libs of TikTok called for a boycott against Bud Light because…transphobia. After we vent about Alito for a bit, Chris walks us through what an Alabama judge threatened to do to a group of LGBTQ+ lawyers and it’s even worse than you could imagine. Be sure to follow Chris (@chrisgeidner/@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) and subscribe to his Substack to support independent legal journalism! Law Dork's coverage of Judge Liles Burke's orders out of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
27-5-2024 • 54 minuten, 57 seconden
Law School Doesn't Have to Suck
T3BE 25 I am pleased to introduce you all to Heather Varanini! In her role as Director of Academic Achievement, Heather spends her days helping students succeed in law school and prepare for the Bar. She's onboard to serve as the Official Opening Arguments Bar Tutor and teach us a lot along the way! In this episode we'll hear more about her journey and the values that she brings to her work; for this week, we do a full Bar Question and Answer to give a sense of what we're in for with her! The traditional staggered Q&A will commence next time!
26-5-2024 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 24 seconden
Benjamin Netanyahu: International Fugitive?
OA1035 A second Alito flag has hit the news, we have election results out of Fulton County, and the jury is nearly out in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. Matt also answers patron questions about how things could go wrong with the jury between now and the verdict, as well as why juries everywhere are so rarely sequestered anymore. After a brief detour past a very important class-action suit against Hershey’s for the insufficient jauntiness of its Halloween candy, we turn to our main story: International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants to be issued against leaders of both Hamas and Israel. How does The Hague have jurisdiction to prosecute the prime minister of a country which has flatly refused to recognize its authority--or, for that matter, Palestinians who carried out the attacks of October 7, 2023 in the territory of that same country? Matt explains the background and recent history of humanity’s first standing international criminal tribunal as we consider what this moment means for Israel, Palestine, and the world. Complaint in Cynthia Kelly v. Hershey (Reese’s lawsuit) ICC expert panel findings re: investigation into “The Situation in Palestine” (5/23/2024) ICC prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants for leaders of Hamas and Israel (5/20/24) Christiane Amanpour interview with ICC prosecutor Kamir Khan (5/20/24) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
24-5-2024 • 55 minuten, 13 seconden
Why Is Alito Like This
OA 1034 With the recent news that a sitting Supreme Court justice was publicly displaying support for Trump’s attempted coup in the days between January 6, 2021 and Joe Biden’s inauguration, it’s time to ask: Is Samuel Alito actually worse than our very low opinion of him? Also who could have possibly known that a hard-right Reagan/Buckley conservative who has been publicly advocating for ending abortion rights since 1985 would turn out to be the ultra-right Trump/Scalia conservative who ended abortion rights in 2022? We take these questions on after a quick look at the latest low point in Rudy Guiliani’s long, steep, and often hilarious fall from grace. (N.B.: there’s so much more to talk about here than we could possibly fit into an hour, we didn’t even get to his awful decisions on the death penalty, among many other things.) Finally, we learn the answer to last week’s T3BE question and consider the multifarious liabilities of stocking a private lake full of piranhas. Alito’s 1985 memo with strategies for overturning Roe v. Wade Alito’s 1985 job application to the Office of Legal Counsel Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2004)(Alito dissent in qualified immunity case involving strip search of a 10-year-old girl) A Tiger on the Court: Sam Alito ‘72 at Princeton, Princeton Alumni Weekly (March 8, 2006) Justice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads its Readers, Wall Street Journal (6/20/23) (Alito op-ed) Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court’s Plain-Spoken Defender, Wall Street Journal (7/28/23) (editorial drawn from 4 hours of interviews with Alito) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
20-5-2024 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 23 seconden
Liz Warren's CFPB Saved By... Originalism?
OA1033 We begin with a quick check-in on Trump’s trial in New York, from the recent appellate ruling on his gag order Todd Blanche's bizarrely personal start to his cross-examination of the most important witness in one of the most important criminal trials in US history. Matt then explains why it might be a felony to run for governor in Washington State if your name is Bob Ferguson. Then: Clarence Thomas just rejected an originalist 5th Circuit ruling to save the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau on behalf of a 7-2 court--with Alito dissenting for totally different originalist reasons. What is going here? We then stop in for a quick layover with the current state of the Boeing non-prosecution agreement before Thomas takes on a bar question about some extremely unpleasant fish. Unanimous order from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upholding Trump NY gag order (5/14/24) RCW 29A.84.320 (WA criminal statute addressing “Duplicate, nonexistent, and untrue names”) SCOTUS ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd. (05/16/2024) DOJ letter to court overseeing Boeing nonprosecution agreement (5/14/24) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
17-5-2024 • 56 minuten, 3 seconden
Steve Vladeck's Taxonomy of Court Reform
OA1032 We're very pleased to welcome Steve Vladeck on the show to talk about what's going on with the Supreme Court these days, and how shadowy their docket has been recently. We then dig into (and debate a touch) a recent piece he wrote regarding a different way to conceptualize about court reform, and what he personally sees as viable and appropriate among the various proposals for change. Be sure to read The Shadow Docket, which will be released on paperback soon, and subscribe to One First to get more of Steve's great coverage! Then we reveal the answer to last episode's T3BE; did Thomas successfully determine the fate of Rebecca the violinist? And who from the audience will be the lucky winner?! Remember to head over to www.patreon.com/gavelpod to follow our Trump Trial coverage ahead of the public release of the show! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
OA1031 First up, BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS!!! The Trump Trial Transcript readings will now only be available on patreon.com/gavelpod! Details inside. Then: the Biden administration is moving forward with rescheduling marijuana to a lower federal classification--and Matt is not happy about it? Find out why this long-overdue acknowledgment of the over-criminalization of cannabis may not only be too little too late, but actually the wrong direction for criminal and social justice. And speaking of justice gone wrong: Aileen Cannon. Fort Pierce, Florida’s best (and only) federal trial judge has once again put off Trump’s classified documents case, this time with no end in sight. We take a closer look at what she is actually doing here before checking in on Trump’s latest success in delaying his RICO trial for election interference in Georgia. We finish up with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which Thomas find out how he did in the strange case of the arsonist who doesn't understand how fire works before wagering his eternal soul on a new question about a sick violinist. Formal HHS recommendation that cannabis be moved to Schedule III (8/29/23) “Legalize it All,” Dan Baum, Harper’s (April 2016)(source of 1994 John Ehrlichman quote as personally recorded by the author) Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (2022 Senate bill removing marijuana from federal drug schedules and putting it under FDA regulation reintroduced by Chuck Schumer on 5/1/2024) Judge Cannon’s Order Setting Second Set of Pretrial Deadlines/Hearings (5/7/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
10-5-2024 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 36 seconden
Trump's Attorney Fails To Impeach Witness So Badly He's Forced To Apologize
OA1030: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 2! This episode centers around David Pecker's testimony and it's basically rock solid. Trump's attorneys are desperate, so Mr. Bove goes for the juggler! And then everyone has to explain it's actually "jugular" why in the world would you go for the "juggler?" Why would that be the idiom? In what world are jugglers like, crucial components of anything, at which you would want to go in order to really hurt someone or something? Maybe at circuses? They're arguably not even that important to circuses though, don't they just mess around in between way better acts to try to distract the audience a little? I just want to assure people that Matt had nothing to do with these show notes. He hasn't had a stroke or anything, don't worry. It's just that I, Thomas, now answer to NO ONE when it comes to Opening Arguments because.... SURPRISE SHOW NOTES ANNOUNCEMENT Andrew is completely out of OA! The legal bull shit is over! More details inside! If you would like to audition to read transcripts on the show in the future, go to https://openargs.com/audition and follow the directions there! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
6-5-2024 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 56 seconden
Judge Merchan: I Have Nothing BUT Contempt for This Trump
OA1029: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 1! Lordy, there are tapes! Our special coverage of People v. Trump continues, now with readings from Juilliard-trained, Tony-winning actors Thomas and Lydia Smith! (none of that is true except possibly our names.) Donald Trump is now the first U.S. President ever to be held in contempt of court. Exactly how criminal is "criminal contempt" in New York, and what does this mean for the rest of the trial? Also, Matt takes us on a fascinating mini-dive on the National Enquirer. It has a very interesting history you might not be familiar with. Then start getting into the trial fireworks. Much more to come! Probably at least 3 parts. 1) People v. Trump Transcripts 2) Justice Merchan's contempt order 3) AMI non-prosecution agreement If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
3-5-2024 • 55 minuten, 21 seconden
Just How Bad Were the Oral Arguments Re: Presidential Immunity?
Episode 1028 Can a former President of the United States be prosecuted for trying to overturn a democratic election? The Supreme Court just spent two hours and forty minutes (!) hearing a case in which they were supposed to be reviewing this simple question and Donald Trump’s claims of total immunity. We review the last oral argument of this term and try to cut through the bad faith, irrelevance, and misdirection to understand what is actually happening here and where it all might be going. DC Trump indictment (8/1/23) Government’s brief in Trump v. U.S Trump’s brief in Trump v. U.S. CSPAN’S complete bookmarked SCOTUS oral arguments in Trump v. U.S. (4/25/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
29-4-2024 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 54 seconden
Your Guide to The People v. Trump
As the first week of the first criminal trial of a former President in U.S. history wraps up, we prepare for our special coverage of People v. Trump by stepping back to remember how we got here. Why is Donald Trump being prosecuted for paying off Stormy Daniels, anyway? Who are all of these people? How good is the prosecution’s case, really? And what can we expect from the defense? We also answer a few patron questions about the trial, after which subscribers will enjoy a dramatic rendition of the best bit of this week’s gag order violation hearing: Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s struggle to convince the court that his client’s retweets are not, as a matter of law, endorsements. PATRON EXTRA! Beginning now, Patreon subscribers will enjoy longer episodes with special bonus content as part of our special coverage of People v. Trump: Thomas and Matt’s readings from our favorite parts of the daily trial transcripts. Subscribe at www.patreon.law/law for the good stuff! Indictment and Statement of Facts, People v. Trump (4/4/2023) New York jury instructions for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (NY Penal Law 175.10) Justice Merchan’s ruling on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss (2/15/24) Daily trial transcripts in People v. Trump If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
26-4-2024 • 54 minuten, 40 seconden
The Trump Trial Is On, and Lordy There Are Transcripts!
Episode 1026 The transcript is in! The first official written record from the first trial of a former President in U.S. history was just released hours before recording, and we dig in for a first look from the first full day of proceedings (Monday April 23rd) to find out which of the 45th president's many misdeeds the court ruled that prosecutors will be allowed to bring up during cross-examination. We also indulge in some dramatic readings of each party's opening statements, and discuss what we can learn from them about the Manhattan DA's case and Trump's defense to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Much more to come! We then check back on last week's round of Thomas Takes the Bar Exam to see how Thomas did on questions about a thieving magician and a lying philanthropist before turning to this week's challenge: an arsonist who doesn't understand how fire works. 1. People's Sandoval Notice filed 4/17/24 2. Transcript of proceedings in People v. Trump on 4/23/24 If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
24-4-2024 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 31 seconden
Did The Supreme Court Just Make Protest Illegal In 3 States?
Episode 1025 Today we take on two law stories the media have been getting wrong recently. 1) Did the Supreme Court just "end the right to protest in three states"? We go beyond the headlines to better understand Justice Sonia Sotomayor's denial of certiorari in a negligence suit brought against Black Lives Matter organizer Deray McKesson by a police officer injured during a BLM protest in Baton Rouge. 2) Biden's border. The impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended last week in the Senate before it ever began, but the lies, misinformation, and terrible reporting which fueled it are only getting worse. Matt breaks down what people who complain about Joe Biden's "open-border policies" are actually saying before getting into the facts. How do Trump's enforcement metrics compare to Biden's? How has a commitment to actually abiding by basic due process and our international and domestic obligations to people seeking protection for persecution been spun into "lawlessness at the border"? And what even are Biden's border policies anyway? 1) Justice Sonia Sotomayor's order denying certiorari in McKesson Doe (4/15/24) 2) Articles of impeachment passed by the House against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (Dismissed by the Senate on 4/16/2024) 3) Data Show Trump Would Have Released as Many Border Crossers as Biden, David Bier, Cato Institute (1/5/2024) 4) The Biden Administration’s Humanitarian Parole Program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans: An Overview, American Immigration Council (10/21/2023) 5) 126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A Historical Review of Immigration Parole Orders, David Bier, Cato Institute (7/17/2023) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
22-4-2024 • 58 minuten, 41 seconden
Trump's Criminal Trial Is Moving Right Along!
Episode 1024 We have a jury! The preliminaries are nearly complete in the first criminal trial of a former president in US history, and we take this opportunity to review what we know so far about the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Donald Trump for funneling hush money to Stormy Daniels three weeks before the 2016 election. How did they pick a jury so quickly? What is DA Alvin Bragg's theory of the case? Could "retweets are not endorsements" actually be a loophole to a gag order? The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday from one of the 350 January 6th rioters charged under a 2002 statute passed by Congress in the wake of the many crimes of Enron. How did Congress's attempt to close a loophole which made it legal for some corporate criminals to destroy evidence so long as they did it by themselves open the door to the prosecution of violent insurrectionists? Is there a new, secret meaning to the word "otherwise" that only lawyers know? Is the Supreme Court really about to agree with the defendant that the words "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding [including in Congress], or attempts to do so" clearly do not apply to him--a person clearly on video violently attempting to obstruct, influence, and/or impede an official proceeding of Congress? We also consider the potential disruption to Jack Smith's DC prosecution of Trump, of which this statute is the basis for one of the four pending charges in that case. For the first time in U.S. history, articles of impeachment brought by the House have been dismissed by the Senate without a trial. Why was the impeachment of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for doing his job in a way that Republicans didn't like (a.k.a. a "high crime" and/or "misdemeanor") so totally dead on arrival? We pay zero respects to what we can only hope will go down as by far the stupidest impeachment in the history of impeachments. (See OA bonus episode of 2/11/24 for our breakdown of the House's articles of impeachment). Meanwhile in Florida, Fort Pierce's finest (and only) federal judge has returned fire after Trump prosecutor Jack Smith had the untrammeled nerve to notice in writing that Fort Pierce's only federal judge really sucks at her job (see OA 1016 & 1020). Fortunately for everyone however, it turns out the only person responsible for her many mistakes is--Jack Smith? 1. 18 USC 1512(c) 2. Defendant/Petitioner Joseph Fischer's brief in Fischer v US 3. Government's brief in Fischer v. US 4. Audio and transcript from SCOTUS oral argument in Fischer v. US (4/15/24) 5. New York Penal Law 175.10 6. Judge Aileen Cannon's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act & gratuitous reference to Jack Smith's complaints about her bizarre thought experiment re: jury instructions (4/4/2024) 7. Judge Cannon's order reconsidering her prior decision to unseal sensitive information in which she blames Jack Smith for letting her get the law wrong (4/9/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
19-4-2024 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 17 seconden
T3BE Week 10! Disappearing Wallets and Fake Philanthropy
Last week's answers, this week's questions! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
17-4-2024 • 40 minuten, 50 seconden
11 Years Ago Today, A Brutal Act of Terror
April 15th marks two significant events in US history: the 11th anniversary of Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev's bombing of the Boston Marathon, and the first day of jury selection in the first criminal trial of a former US President. These two very different situations both share one important legal question: how do you select a jury from a city full of people who not only know a defendant by name but have good reasons to despise them? Boston residents Matt and Casey share their own memories of the day that changed their city forever before breaking down the trial of surviving bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev and ensuing appeals of his death sentence to the 1st Circuit and Supreme Court. We examine why the U.S. publicly announced that it would not be reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, and debate whether or not the defense should have been allowed to introduce evidence during the penalty phase that Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have participated in a triple homicide two years earlier to prove his influence over his younger brother. What can Clarence Thomas's decision reinstating Tsarnaev's death sentence tell us about how Trump trial judges might handle jury selection? And what might be next following the 1st Circuit's recent findings on juror bias? 1) U.S. v. Tsarnaev indictment 2) Middlesex District Attorney's report on Watertown PD's shootout with the Tsarnaev brothers 3) 1st Circuit's decision vacating Dzhokar Tsarnaev's death sentence (7/31/2020) 4) Supreme Court decision reinstating Tsarnaev's death sentence (3/5/2022) 5) Most recent 1st Circuit decision ordering further hearing on juror bias (3/21/2024) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
15-4-2024 • 1 uur, 9 minuten
Arizona Republican Party Like It's 1864
Episode 1022 Courts in Arizona and Florida have both ended abortion rights in very different (but both terrible) ways this month. Did Arizona actually resurrect a 160-year law passed decades before it was even a state? And how weird can it get when you go full originalist on a law that is younger than most people in Florida? Before we get there, Matt opens by sharing his experience with the OJ Simpson trial at the age of 14 and how it shaped his understanding of US criminal law. We then make sure to pay appropriate respects to the violent domestic abuser who (do we even have to say "allegedly" anymore?) brutally murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994. Also, two different countries have committed extreme and unprecedented violations of international law involving embassies in the past week. How does the Vienna Convention protect diplomatic posts, and what actually happens when these international agreements are broken? The first of the Trump trials will finally begin in New York in one business day! How does jury selection even work in a case where everyone on the planet has an opinion about the defendant? 1) Planned Parenthood v Florida (4/1/24) 2) In Re: TW, 551 So. 2d 1186 (1989) 3) Planned Parenthood of AZ v. Mayes (4/9/24) 3) The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) 4) Judge Merchan's letter to the parties in NY v. Trump outlining jury selection process If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
12-4-2024 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 2 seconden
T3BE Week 9! Prescription Negligence and Breach of Contract
As usual, we've got last week's answers and this week's questions! Some fun and tricky ones... If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
10-4-2024 • 39 minuten, 56 seconden
RERELEASE: Immigrant Workers Died Repairing Bridge Named After Slaveholder
Hey folks, due to an annoying technical glitch, I'm just re-releasing this episode. This was some weird backend problem with our hosting. The file looks completely fine everywhere that I can see, but internet goblins decide otherwise, I guess. Sorry for the trouble and I'll make sure this won't happen again! OA10121 On March 26, 2024 a container ship the size of the Eiffel Tower named for the world's most famous surrealist destroyed a bridge named after the author of the U.S. national anthem yards from one of the most notable sites of our country's least popular war. Who was Francis Scott Key anyway, and why has the man who gave the world the phrase "land of the free and the home of the brave" gotten a total pass for writing the world's worst national anthem while owning people and prosecuting abolitionists? We then honor the memories of the six Latino immigrants who lost their lives in this disaster by taking a closer look at the contributions of both undocumented and "lightly documented" workers to the U.S. economy, including the massive boost of more than $7 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted the so-called "border crisis" will bring in the coming years. But what about the most recent Republican "solution" to give the world's whitest and wealthiest a chance at the American Dream? Would Thomas be able to immigrate to the U.S. under Sen. Tom Cotton's RAISE Act? We end with a short cruise through maritime law and examine why the owners of the Dali are seeking protection under the same 209-year-old maritime law which was used to severely limit the liability of everyone responsible for the Titanic. 1. "Francis Scott Key Opposed 'Land of the Free,'" Jefferson Morley (2012) 2. Baltimore bridge collapse victims: New info on who they were – NBC4 Washington (3/28/24) 3. Baltimore Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs Key Bridge Emergency Response Fund 4. RAISE Act point system infographic 5. 20 Years Later, Undocumented Immigrants Who Aided 9/11 Recovery & Cleanup Efforts Demand Recognition | Democracy Now! (9/15/2021) 6. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Mellor :: 233 U.S. 718 (1914) (U.S. Supreme Court's application of the 1851 Limitation of Liability Act to the Titanic disaster) 7. Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability filed in federal court by the owners of the Dali (4/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
9-4-2024 • 54 minuten, 3 seconden
Immigrant Workers Died Repairing Bridge Named After Slaveholder
OA10121 On March 26, 2024 a container ship the size of the Eiffel Tower named for the world's most famous surrealist destroyed a bridge named after the author of the U.S. national anthem yards from one of the most notable sites of our country's least popular war. Who was Francis Scott Key anyway, and why has the man who gave the world the phrase "land of the free and the home of the brave" gotten a total pass for writing the world's worst national anthem while owning people and prosecuting abolitionists? We then honor the memories of the six Latino immigrants who lost their lives in this disaster by taking a closer look at the contributions of both undocumented and "lightly documented" workers to the U.S. economy, including the massive boost of more than $7 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted the so-called "border crisis" will bring in the coming years. But what about the most recent Republican "solution" to give the world's whitest and wealthiest a chance at the American Dream? Would Thomas be able to immigrate to the U.S. under Sen. Tom Cotton's RAISE Act? We end with a short cruise through maritime law and examine why the owners of the Dali are seeking protection under the same 209-year-old maritime law which was used to severely limit the liability of everyone responsible for the Titanic. 1. "Francis Scott Key Opposed 'Land of the Free,'" Jefferson Morley (2012) 2. Baltimore bridge collapse victims: New info on who they were – NBC4 Washington (3/28/24) 3. Baltimore Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs Key Bridge Emergency Response Fund 4. RAISE Act point system infographic 5. 20 Years Later, Undocumented Immigrants Who Aided 9/11 Recovery & Cleanup Efforts Demand Recognition | Democracy Now! (9/15/2021) 6. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Mellor :: 233 U.S. 718 (1914) (U.S. Supreme Court's application of the 1851 Limitation of Liability Act to the Titanic disaster) 7. Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability filed in federal court by the owners of the Dali (4/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
8-4-2024 • 54 minuten, 3 seconden
Jack Smith's Smackdown of Judge Cannon
Episode 1020! It's time for a round of Trump updates, starting in Florida with the responses to Judge Aileen Cannon's weird request that the parties try making up new law that she could try out on a jury if this case ever finally makes it to one. Is Jack Smith's response to this nonsense everything we'd wanted? And what happens when you actually try to sit down read anything that the Trump defense team has filed as if it were a serious legal document? We then turn to recent legal developments in New York, where a subprime auto lender has totally failed to post Trump's bond and Judge Merchan finally had to get around to putting in writing that the world's most famous criminal defendant isn't allowed to go after his family. 1. Trump's response to Judge Cannon's order 2. Jack Smith's response to Judge Cannon's order 3. 18 USC Sec 793 (Espionage Act) 4. Presidential Records Act 5. Trump's opposition to motion to clarify gag order 6. Judge Marchan's order expanding gag order 7. Judge MacAfee's denial of motion to dismiss Fulton County charges on 1st Amendment grounds If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
5-4-2024 • 58 minuten, 56 seconden
T3BE Week 8! Elaborate Crimes and Psychedelics
Can you believe it, it's T3BE8! You know the drill, we answer last week's questions, honor two winners, and then ask two more questions! But Matt has a new bar exam book, and it's going to be quite fun, if these questions are any indicator. Deviously hard, needlessly complex, extremely silly... it has it all! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
3-4-2024 • 46 minuten, 55 seconden
Boeing Killed 346 People. So Why Did They Get a Sweetheart Deal?
Most criminal defendants can't kill 346 people and expect to get off with a light fine and three years of probation, but most criminal defendants are not The Boeing Company. In today's show, we examine the differences between different kinds of pretrial diversion agreements and why the best ones are reserved for ultra-wealthy defendants like Boeing and Jeffrey Epstein. We then take a closer look at the DOJ's routine use of deferred prosecution agreements to help our nation's most valued citizens (corporations) avoid the unpleasant inconvenience of facing actual consequences of their actions (killing people), with a special focus on the NPA which recently resolved Boeing's recent deadly fraud involving its 737 MAX. 1. Boeing Deferred Prosecution Agreement (1/7/2021) 2. "Nosedive: Boeing and the Corruption of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement," Prof. John C. Coffee (6/6/2022) 3. "Why Boeing pilot Forkner was acquitted in the 737 MAX prosecution,"| The Seattle Times (3/25/22) 4. "Blowing the Door Off Boeing’s ‘Epstein Deal’" - The American Prospect (2/9/24) 5. Fifth Circuit order dated 12/15/23 from In re Ryan et al confirming that courts have no authority to review a DPA and that families will have to wait to oppose any future motion to dismiss If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
2-4-2024 • 1 uur, 7 seconden
The Mifepristone Case Is an Insult to the Concept of Standing
Episode 1018 - GOOD NEWS EPISODE! It's positive vibes only as we celebrate the impending disbarment of MAGA law toadies John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, the first but-actually-for-real-this-time Trump trial date, and some extremely real threats to your favorite President's sacred First Amendment rights to lie to the public and terrorize the families of court personnel. In more good news, the Supreme Court couldn't seem to find an actual excuse to ban medical abortions this week--or even find anyone who could even claim to have been in the same ZIP code as someone harmed by mifepristone--so we take a good look for ourselves and don't find too much to worry about. One more bit of good news: Matt wants to give you a job! (Inquire within.) 1. John Eastman's two-page proposal to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election 2. Judge Yvette Roland's full 126-page decision to the CA Supreme Court recommending John Eastman's disbarment (March 27, 2024) 3. Judge Merchan's gag order (3/26/24) 4. Trump's motion to dismiss GA charges on 1st Amendment grounds (12/23/2024) 5. Transcript of oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (March 26, 2024) 6. Federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling (April 7, 2023) 7. Application of Comstock Act to Drugs That Can Be Used for Abortion (USPS General Counsel)(12/23/2022) 8) 18 U.S. Code § 1461 - Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter (Comstock Act) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
29-3-2024 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 10 seconden
T3BE Week 7! Best Evidence and Contract Law
It's week 7, and it's a Next Generation of test. Make it so! Oh also, we're still dogged by controversy, #T3BEgate2.5 but we've got a fall guy and it's Matt. Question 12 was a repeat and Matt is to blame and accepts the inevitable public shaming. But 13 was new! And, now we've got an entirely new kind of test! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
27-3-2024 • 38 minuten, 50 seconden
Contractor Who Leaked Trump's Tax Return Gets 5 Years In Prison
Episode 1017 He had a plea agreement with the government which he thought would get him 8-14 months. He ended up with 5 years. What happened? Also, was this Democrats' version of January 6th Casey joins this week to help to answer an OA patron's question about the plea agreement reached in the prosecution of former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn for leaking records of Donald Trump, Rick Scott, Elon Musk, and a tragically high number of other innocent and blameless billionaires who are simply far too important to have to pay their taxes. We then review the unique role of plea bargaining in U.S. law and exactly how these agreements are reached and play out in court. Did you know that approximately 98% of all federal criminal charges are resolved in a way which is portrayed in approximately 0% of law-related movies and TV show? 1. "The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax," Propublica (6/8/2021) 2. "How These Ultrawealthy Politicians Avoided Paying Taxes," Propublica (11/4/2021) 3. "Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance," NYT (9/27/2020) 4. "Most criminal cases end in plea bargains, new study finds," NPR (2/22/2023) 5. Boykin v. Alabama :: 395 U.S. 238 (1969) 6. Padilla v. Kentucky :: 559 U.S. 356 (2010) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
25-3-2024 • 58 minuten, 13 seconden
Judge Aileen Cannon Sucks - A Definitive Guide
Who is Aileen Cannon? Why is Aileen Cannon? We answer these important questions and many more in this brief review of the incomprehensible jurisprudence of the best federal judge in Fort Pierce, Florida. 1. Aileen Cannon's Senate Judiciary Committee nomination questionnaire 2. Map of federal Southern District of Florida 3. Democratic questioning at Aileen Cannon's group confirmation hearing 4. Judge Cannon's Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief (9/5/22) 5. 11th Circuit's reversal of Cannon's 9/5/22 order re: 100 classified documents (9/21/22) 6. 11th Circuit's reversal of Cannon's equitable jurisdiction ruling (12/1/22) 7. Jack Smith's Motion for Reconsideration & Stay (2/8/24) 8. Government's Opposition to Motion for Additional Time to File Certain Motions (2/8/24) 9. Judge Cannon's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss on vagueness grounds (without prejudice)(3/14/24) 10. Relevant portion of the Espionage Act 11. Judge Cannon's weird order demanding that the parties engage in a fantasy thought experiment about law that doesn't exist (3/18/24)
22-3-2024 • 1 uur, 35 seconden
T3BE Week 6 - ROCKED by Scandal #T3BEgate2
Massive controversy shakes T3BE to its core. Thomas and Matt respond to the international outcry and media firestorm generated by allegations that T3BE is using repeat questions. After that, we get two TOTALLY DEFINITELY NEW practice bar exam questions. Topics are appealing to SCOTUS re State constution vs. US constitution, and also the gender wage gap when it comes to bank robbery. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
20-3-2024 • 38 minuten, 5 seconden
Deported by an Immigration Court in a Strip Mall
Episode 1015 Part 2 of Azul's story Folks... I implore you. I beg of you, please listen to this one all the way through. Azul tells us the rest of her story, and talks about where she is now, and it is one of if not the most inspiring, heartwarming things I have ever had the privilege of publishing. Seriously. And please share it. Another massive thanks to Azul, and to Matt, who we are so incredibly lucky to have on the show. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
18-3-2024 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 19 seconden
We Have A Ruling In Fani Willis Case - EMERGENCY POD
Emergency Bonus Pod! - Fani Willis and the Odor of Mendacity Judge MacAfee has issued a ruling on the Fani Willis disqualification motion. Get the OA breakdown with a full analysis and plenty of opinion and context. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
16-3-2024 • 42 minuten, 57 seconden
Judge Dismisses Some Trump Charges. Should We Be Worried?
Episode 1014 We begin by pouring a Tequila Sunrise out for the charges against three memorabilia collectors charged with stealing old Eagles lyrics, in which the unexpected airing of 6,000 pages of Don Henley's dirty laundry had Manhattan prosecutors realizing last week that they truly could check out anytime they liked. Matt then takes us through Fulton County Judge Scott MacAfee's decision to dismiss 6 of the 41 pending counts against Trump and his goons. Can Trump still be prosecuted for his "perfect phone call" to GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger? And what does a guy have to do to solicit someone to violate an oath around here, anyway? We then turn some much-needed light on to Texas's most recent attempt to enforce federal immigration law before finishing up with some good immigration news out of--also Texas? 1. Order on Defendants' Special Demurrers (J. McAfee, 3/13/24) 2. Georgia Code Sec. 15-4-7 (Criminal Solicitation) 3. Georgia Code Sec. 16-10-1 (Violation of Oath by Public Officer) 4. Fulton County indictment of Trump et al (8/14/2023) 5. Judge David Ezra's decision in U.S. v. TX (2/29/24)(granting injunction against SB4) 6. Arizona v. U.S. (2012)(striking down most of AZ SB1070) 7. Judge Drew Tipton's decision in Texas v. DHS (finding no standing for TX to challenge Biden's CHNV parole program) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
15-3-2024 • 54 minuten, 36 seconden
T3BE Week 5! Personal Injury and Comparative Negligence
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Week 5! Ok so last week revealed to us that the "hot unbreakable streak" was not, in fact, unbreakable. No one could have seen this coming though, so no use in playing the blame game. Thomas comes into the week 5-2. Will he go to 5-4? Or 7-2? Or perhaps the other possible record? Find out! Then, we get 2 new questions! It's personal injury, and also... personal injury? Maybe? We'll see! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
13-3-2024 • 42 minuten, 9 seconden
Arrested on Her 22nd Birthday. She Didn't Know She Was Undocumented.
Episode 1013 Today, we get to meet Azul Uribe. Azul lived most of her life in the US as a devout Mormon, doing her best to get by in a sea of Whiteness. She even made jokes at her own expense about being undocumented. That all changed when she was arrested at age 22 under bizarre and very unlucky circumstances. She was put in ICE detention. Treated terribly. Strip searched multiple times. She then found out those jokes... weren't. Despite being a college student, Azul faced deportation from the only home she'd ever known. Join us as we hear Azul's fascinating and heartbreaking story, in all its raw humanity. And we learn more about our immigration system, and its raw inhumanity. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
11-3-2024 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 47 seconden
Did the Trump Colorado Decision Make You Feel Crazy? You’re Not Alone.
Episode 1012 Does anyone else feel like the Supreme Court decided a part of the Constitution just doesn't exist anymore? Perhaps you're like Listener Thomas S, who found this decision absolutely nuts. If so, you're in luck, because in this episode of OA, Thomas throws every argument at actual lawyer Matt Cameron for why this decision sucked. How does the actual lawyer feel? Did SCOTUS get it right actually? Find out! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
8-3-2024 • 59 minuten, 8 seconden
T3BE Week 4! Firefighters' Rule and Interstate Commerce
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Week 4! Thomas comes into this week on a HOT, some would say, UNBREAKABLE, streak! 5-0. So, naturally, he aced questions 6 and 7, right? You'll find out! After those answers, we get questions 8 and 9, pictured below! What the hell is the firefighters' rule? And are drycleaners interstate commerce? If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
6-3-2024 • 36 minuten, 30 seconden
MAGA Fascists Try To Ban Drag and Fail. Repeatedly.
Here's one for everyone who enjoys stories about terrible people losing in court! Casey stops by to review Alito's complaint to America's managers about the devastating cost of marriage equality: the exclusion of anti-LGBTQ bigots from juries. Matt breaks down the total failure of state attempts to ban drag shows and why the actual First Amendment keeps winning over the one that the kinds of people who yell the most about the First Amendment seem to think that they are yelling about. 1. Thomas/Alito statement in 2020 denial of Kim Davis's cert petition (2020) 2. Alito's concurrence in denial of cert in Missouri Dept of Corrections v. Finney (2024) 3. Trial court decision in Friends of Georges v. Mulroy (TN drag show ban) 4. Trial court decision in Florida-ORL v. Griffin (FL drag show ban) 5. Trial court decision in Woodlands Pride v. Paxton (TX drag show ban) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
4-3-2024 • 59 minuten, 1 seconde
A Tale of Two Dons in Criminal Court
Episode 1010 It was the worst of Dons, it was the worst of Dons. Eagles singer Don Henley was not taking it easy in a New York City courtroom this week in his testimony against three memorabilia-collecting desperadoes who had to bring their alibis to face charges of conspiring to sell stolen (?) legal pads filled with Henley's drafts of "Hotel California"-era lyrics. Will the court find that these defendants are hiding their lyin' eyes, or is the Manhattan DA's case against them already gone? New kid in town Matt takes his legal analysis to the limit one more time. We move on to some Trump updates, including the Supreme Court's decision to take his extremely unserious claims of Presidential immunity for all crimes seriously and complications to the defense's effort to disqualify Fani Willis from the Fulton County prosecution. Oh also, Trump doesn't want to pay any money and is complaining to the court on account of "I don't like this." If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
1-3-2024 • 56 minuten, 48 seconden
T3BE Week 3! Drugs and Hearsay
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam! It's time for the answers to last week's questions, plus two more! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
28-2-2024 • 30 minuten, 21 seconden
Project 2025 Is Terrifying
Episode 1009 The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 has been making headlines with its promises to set the next Republican president up with a full staff of loyal civil servants and a 920-page executive branch playbook--but what is actually in this thing, and what can we learn from it? Matt takes us through some disturbing echoes of 1933 Germany, which was a famously chill and cool time, showing us how the legal system has historically been used to turn democracies into autocracies. We learn that laws with the most boring names are often the scariest, and about the administrative violence of a well-timed memo. 1. Heritage Foundation's Mandate for Leadership (2023) 2. Presidential Personnel Database (Project 2025 job application) 3. Nazi Telegram with instructions for Kristallnacht (Nov 10, 1938) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
26-2-2024 • 57 minuten, 42 seconden
Embryos Are People, My Friend
Episode 1008 Today we are serving up a tasteful pairing of radically destructive activism from one supreme court with a refreshing adherence to basic Constitutional law from another. We start in Alabama, where the state's highest court just found with no any apparent legal, factual, or moral justification whatsoever that a few hundred frozen cells are legally equivalent to a "child"--because God, probably? Unclear! We then review a recent example of the U.S. Supreme Court doing exactly what it is supposed to do: reviewing and unanimously reversing an obvious Constitutional violation, in this case one which put a man who had been acquitted on mental health grounds at risk of the death penalty. 1. Alabama Supreme Court's decision in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C. 2. Ketanji Brown Jackson's decision for a unanimous court in McElrath v. Georgia, 601 U.S. ____ (2024) [PDF] 3. Free downloadable version of the Century Schoolbook typeface If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
23-2-2024 • 54 minuten, 4 seconden
T3BE Week 2!
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam! It's time for the answers to last week's questions, plus two more! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
22-2-2024 • 32 minuten, 34 seconden
The Fani Willis Hearings - Your Comprehensive Guide 2
Episode 1007 It's Part 2! Fani testifies! It is high drama. Not only that, we hear from an incredible Cohen Brothers movie character for some reason. We also hear from Fani Willis's dad, someone who has led a fascinating life. Then finally, they put Wade's ex-partner Bradley on the stand and... try to make him talk for like 4 hours. It also takes a very dark turn. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
21-2-2024 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 55 seconden
The Fani Willis Hearings - Your Comprehensive Guide
Episode 1006 Part 1! We watched 17 hours of Fulton Country Superior Court so you don't have to! Cohabitating lawyers Matt and Casey are here to break down many of the legal issues, from the mundane to the outright bizarre. These hearings were truly extraordinary. Some of the craziest courtroom drama to ever happen in the real world. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
20-2-2024 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 35 seconden
What In God's Name Is Happening In Georgia
Episode 1005. So uh, yeah. About that. The news was so crazy that we recorded two different episodes and I had to stitch them together like a Frankenstein's Podster. Because WOW Georgia. In addition to that, Matt has for us a tour of the Trump legal circuit! It makes stops in DC, Florida, Georgia, and New York, with a brief layover in 1998 to reminisce about where we were the first time we heard an elected official talking about their sex life under oath. We share some initial impressions of the first day of Fulton County DA Fani Willis's disqualification hearing, debate whether Nathan Wade actually billed the county for 24 hours of work in one day, and consider what might happen next (and what probably should have earlier) in this unfortunate and entirely evitable sideshow to the single most important state criminal case prosecuted in our lifetimes. Also discussed: What's next for the stupidest impeachment in the history of impeachments? What's up with the House rule which makes tying a vote *much* worse than losing one? Is Robert Hur a doctor or does he just like playing one in special counsel reports? And we finally learn the one thing that truly makes Matt angry: FONTS. 1. Nixon v. U.S. (1993) 2. Trump's stay request to SCOTUS re: immunity claims 3. GA Defendant David Shafer's filing re: motion to disqualify 4. GA Code § 15-18-15 (2018) 5. Judge Merchan's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
16-2-2024 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 33 seconden
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Returns! T3BE Week 1
At laaaaaaaast it is the return of #T3BE! And we've got, not 1, not 2, but 3 questions! First, a question + answer to get warmed up, since we don't have any answers from previous weeks. THEN, the question everyone can play along with. AND THEN, it's the question only Patrons are elligible to win. But also, for patreons only, I've included the first question Matt and I ever did. We did some T3BE to practice, and this first one is maybe my favorite. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability. I used Dall-e for fun to create a T3BE graphic and it gave me "Thas BAR EXAM!" 10/10
14-2-2024 • 34 minuten, 49 seconden
SCOTUS OKs Execution By Nitrogen Gas Because Evil
This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa Episode 1004. "What's going wrong?" Neil Young once asked Alabama, and it's still a good question 52 years later in the wake of the unprecedented execution of Eugene Michael Smith on January 25, 2024 by nitrogen gas. Casey returns to share why learning about the death penalty made her want to be a lawyer before we review the recent history of capital punishment in the U.S. and the dangers of an originalist interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" execution. We then take a closer look at how a completely untested method of taking a human life came to be used in Alabama and find some hope for an end to state-sanctioned murder. 1. VIDEO: Spiritual advisor Jeff Hood describes the execution of Eugene Michael Smith 2. VIDEO: Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall describes Smith's execution as "textbook" 3. Bucklew v. Precythe :: 587 U.S. ___ (2019) 4. Sotomayor's dissent in Smith v. Hamm 5. Thomas and Alito's dissent in Hamm v. Smith 6. The Death Penalty in 2023: Year End Report | Death Penalty Information Center If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability. Graphic generated by Dall-e and seemed fitting.
12-2-2024 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 8 seconden
Bonus! These Are Not Serious People...
Republicans thought they were going to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas but they didn't count on... AL GREEN! There has been so much in the news that Matt and I thought we'd do some bonus recording, both to give you fine folks more content and also to keep practicing and getting into the groove. Matt breaks down the absurd Articles of Impeachment that some Republican intern typed up. Then we talk about the border bill Republicans demanded but then... fought against after Trump said to. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
11-2-2024 • 51 minuten, 53 seconden
The Fani Willis Thing... How Bad Is It?
This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa! In Episode 1003, Thomas and Matt are joined by Matt's partner, Casey, to discuss what's been going on with District Attorney Fani Willis down in Fulton County, Georgia. Perhaps you've heard about a scandal involving a relationship and a messy divorce... But how severe is it? How much of it is real, and how much is MAGA disinfo? What is likely to happen? Find out! Casey was a prosecutor at the state level for more than 15 years. She has extensive experience in both trial and appellate litigation, including a substantial caseload of major felony and homicide matters. So not only are they a prosecutor and a defense attorney, but Matt and Casey also bring some extra insight when it comes to relationships between lawyers, as they are a real-life married lawyer couple! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
10-2-2024 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 17 seconden
These Are Death Penalty Cases In Traffic Court
This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa In episode 1002, we get to know Matt Cameron. He talks about his background, his legal practice and areas of expertise. I ask him about the case he is most proud of, and you will not believe what it took for him to win it! Then I ask him about the case he most regrets, and... wow. Let's just say Matt does incredibly difficult and important work. You do not want to miss this one, these stories are so compelling, and they make me so excited going forward with OA and Matt onboard! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
8-2-2024 • 51 minuten, 59 seconden
Thomas Takes the Podcast Back
#T3PB babyyyyyy! Due to several good court thingies, this podcast is now hosted by Thomas Smith. Not too much can be said, but this episode contains a bit of how we got here, and the plan for the future. If you'd like to support the show, please pledge at patreon.com/law and get your hands on the first lawsode with Matt Cameron! Plus lots of bonus things coming. For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
8-2-2024 • 15 minuten, 26 seconden
OA860: Goodbye
Liz says goodbye.
26-1-2024 • 1 minuut, 10 seconden
OA859: Looks Like We Won't Have DeSantis To Kick Around Any More
On the day that Ron DeSantis dropped out of the Republican presidential primary and endorsed his personal bully, Donald Trump, Liz and Andrew cover two stories that could impact the 2024 presidential election. First, we tackle the centrist group "No Labels" request that the Civil Rights Division of the Department begin a criminal RICO investigation into... people who don't like the centrist group "No Labels." Neat! Then, we break down all of the pending actual law stuff going on in Trump's civil defamation suit in New York -- since precious little of that is going on in the courtroom itself. What's the rule of completeness? When are defenses waived? Who has a duty to mitigate? And so much more! Notes Habba Letter Brief re: Mitigation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.272.0.pdf No Labels https://www.nolabels.org/documents/59546/DOJ%20letter%201.11.24.pdf Co-founder of No Labels resigns https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-labels-may-re-elect-donald-trump-third-party-independent-galston-rematch-f2e7697d Semafor article on No Labels https://www.semafor.com/article/12/19/2023/the-plot-against-no-labels -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
22-1-2024 • 1 uur, 12 seconden
OA858: Trump Laywers Are Tryin' It In All The Courts
Liz and Andrew dive deeply into Alina Habba and Michael Madaio's efforts to cross-examine E. Jean Carroll and her expert, Dr. Ashlee Humphreys. Plus much, much more! Notes Ameriekalinje v. Sun P. P. Assn, 226 N.Y. 1 (1919) https://casetext.com/case/norske-ameriekalinje-v-sun-p-p-assn Justice Manual 9-5.000 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
19-1-2024 • 56 minuten, 48 seconden
OA857: Can Elon Musk Blow Up Your Right To Join A Union?
After a roundup including the first day of the E. Jean Carroll trial, Liz and Andrew break down the latest SpaceX lawsuit and discuss what it might mean for the future of collective bargaining. Notes Nathan J. Robinson, researcher, Current Affairs, “Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk,” April 7, 2021 https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/04/surely-we-can-do-better-than-elon-musk S. Derek Turner, “Broadband Boondoggle: Ajit Pai's $886M Gift to Elon Musk,” Free Press, December 14, 2020 https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/insights-opinions/broadband-boondoggle-ajit-pais-886m-gift-elon-musk NLRB proceedings against SpaceX https://www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-307446 NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/chapter-7/subchapter-II NLRB damages chart https://www.nlrb.gov/reports/nlrb-case-activity-reports/unfair-labor-practice-cases/remedies-achieved/monetary-remedies SpaceX v. NLRB docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68136196/space-exploration-technologies-corp-v-national-labor-relations-board/Paragraph -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
17-1-2024 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 37 seconden
OA856: Trump Tries To Delay Carroll Trial (But Not Campaign Rally!) For Funeral
Today, Liz and Andrew document Donald Trump's latest (failed) shenanigans in the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial set to begin in New York on Tuesday. Then, they break down in depth the motion to disappear the Fulton County, GA indictment on the grounds of DA Fani Willis's alleged relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. NotesTrump DC Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump E. Jean Carroll v. Trump (Carroll I) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/carroll-v-trump/ Roman Motion to Dismiss GA https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24352568/roman-motion-to-dimiss-010824.pdf Whitworth v. State, 622 S.E.2d 21 (Ga. App. 2005) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3050238223814330373 Paragraph -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
15-1-2024 • 52 minuten, 4 seconden
OA855: Trump Fraud Trial Ends, Not With A Bang But With a Tantrum
Liz and Andrew describe the truly audacious plan cooked up by Trump and his counsel to disrupt his fraud trial's closing arguments. Then, the two break down a recent TRO entered prohibiting Ohio's social media ("anti-TikTok") law from going into effect. Notes Pew Media Poll https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/31/81-of-us-adults-versus-46-of-teens-favor-parental-consent-for-minors-to-use-social-media/ NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, 1/5 Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455.1.0.pdf NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, 1/9 Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455.27.0_1.pdf Ohio Rev. Code 1349.09 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1349.09 OA 767 https://openargs.com/oa767-porn-wont-someone-please-think-of-the-children-feat-ari-cohn/
12-1-2024 • 41 minuten, 32 seconden
OA854: Trump Lawyers Discover ONE WEIRD TRICK To Get Away With Murder! (Be President.)
"So, I understand your answer to be that if the President uses Seal Team Six to assassinate his political rival, and he hasn't been impeached and convicted by the Senate, he can't be prosecuted." That really happened. Liz and Andrew break down yesterday's pivotal argument before the Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit as to whether Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for his efforts to steal the 2020 Election because he was the President. Notes Roman Motion to Dismiss GA https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24352568/roman-motion-to-dimiss-010824.pdf Trump brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208582803.0_3.pdf DOJ brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208583920.0_1.pdf American Oversight amicus https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208583989.0_1.pdf 167 Cong. Rec. S607 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2021) https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/09/CREC-2021-02-09.pdf Kel’s CLE class https://dcbar.inreachce.com/Details/Information/9e60ed07-539c-4b48-bc8b-cb75b543d99c -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
10-1-2024 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 20 seconden
OA853: The NRA Is On Trial & The Mouse Is Loose!
In this Trump-free episode, Andrew and Liz break down the civil trial of the National Rifle Association beginning TODAY in New York. No, the NRA isn't going to be dissolved, but yes, they could be hit with a ton of restrictions & some bad actors could be forced to fork over a ton of money, so you'll want to follow this story. Then, the duo tackle the passage of Steamboat Willie into the public domain. What is the public domain? What does it all mean? Listen and find out! Notes DC Circuit livestream Trump Appeal Tuesday Jan 9, 9:30amET https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQ1aToavl8 Babbitt Estate v. US — Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68139457/estate-of-ashli-babbitt-v-babbitt/ US v. Texas — Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68134300/united-states-v-texas/ NY Case Search https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/CaseSearch Appellate Docket No: 2023-06396 Trial Docket No: 451625/2020 US Copyright Office Circular 33 https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate (7th Cir. 2014) https://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/klinger-7th-circuit-opinion-c.pdf Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/secrecy-self-dealing-and-greed-at-the-nra NRA Awarded Contracts to Firms With Ties to Top Officials https://www.wsj.com/articles/nra-awarded-contracts-to-firms-with-ties-to-top-officials-1543590697 Paragraph -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
8-1-2024 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 40 seconden
OA852: Trump Asks SCOTUS To Put Him Back on the Colorado Ballot Despite 14th Amendment
Liz and Andrew break down an entirely new argument being advanced by Trump's allies to get him back on the Colorado ballot. Will it work? Listen and find out! Then, the duo break down the latest barrage of nonsense filings in DC. Notes Colorado state court ruling https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf Colorado Supreme Court ruling https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf Lawfare Tracker on Trump DQ https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker OA 836 https://openargs.com/oa836-yes-a-court-found-that-trump-incited-an-insurrection-now-what-feat-seth-barrett-tillman/ OA 848 https://openargs.com/oa848-trump-is-off-the-ballot-in-colorado/ Socialist Workers Party of Ill. v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 109, 113 (N.D. Ill. 1972) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13881601664092355452 Voting and Vice, 2012 Yale Law Review (Re and Re) https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5515&context=ylj Trump report on stolen election https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf Trump lawyers’ doozy of a filing on voter fraud - Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-lawyers-doozy-filing-voter-fraud/ Rolling Stone on Trump turning trial into a MAGA freak show https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-plot-to-turn-jan-6-trial-into-maga-freak-show-1234938951/ Trump motion for order to show cause DC https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.192.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
5-1-2024 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 58 seconden
OA851: Iowa Judge Cancel Cultures GOP Book Ban
Our first episode of 2024 is a Good News episode! First, Liz and Andrew break down a new argument that might get everything back on track in Trump's DC prosecution. Then, the duo unpack a recent ruling enjoining Iowa's anti-LGBTQ book ban. Notes Trump DC per curiam order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584150.0_5.pdf Trump DC immunity brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208582803.0_3.pdf Ed Meese amicus brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584119.0_1.pdf American Oversight amicus brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208583989.0_1.pdf In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (2019) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8603210867025765580 D. Iowa Order re LGBTQ book ban https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.iasd.85819/gov.uscourts.iasd.85819.65.0.pdf Iowa Senate File 496 https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/90/SF496.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
3-1-2024 • 1 uur, 38 seconden
OA850: Our Favorite Stories of the Year
After speedrunning the Year in Trump, Liz and Andrew share their favorite legal stories of 2023. Notes MN state supreme court ruling in Growe v. Simon https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24138784/order-dismiss-not-stipulated-entire-case.pdf ME SOS determination re: Trump https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24245391/decision-in-challenge-to-trump-presidential-primary-petitions.pdf US v. Trump DC Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/ Michael Cohen ChatGPT https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.104.0.pdf OA 751 https://openargs.com/oa751-chatgpt-writes-fake-opinions-real-judge-is-not-amused/ US v Trump SDFL Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
31-12-2023 • 59 minuten, 58 seconden
OA849: The Law Of New Year's!
As we wind down 2023, Liz and Andrew bring you an entirely Trump-free, New Year's Eve-themed show! First, the two discuss legal weed, President Biden's pardon, and what the future holds for those who like to smoke. Then, Liz and Andrew discuss the legal minutiae of the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the conviction of Rep. Fortenberry (pictured). Ever wanted to know the difference between venue and vicinage? You will now! Thank you for listening to us in 2023! Notes Sessions January 4, 2018 memo re marijuana prosecutions https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-memo-marijuana-enforcement Biden October 6, 2022 statement on marijuana https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/ 21 U.S.C. § 844 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/844 Fortenberry Ruling https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60659391/united-states-v-fortenberry/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
29-12-2023 • 45 minuten, 3 seconden
OA848: Trump is Off the Ballot in Colorado!
Liz and Andrew break down what the latest decision by the Colorado Supreme Court means, how it will take effect, and how a court that claims to be devoted to textualism and originalism will grapple with arguments aimed squarely at their wheelhouse. You know you want it! In the A segment, they also break down Trump's latest efforts to convince the Supreme Court to move really, really slowly. Notes Colorado Supreme Court declares Trump ineligible for the ballot https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf Lawfare Tracker on Trump DQ https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker OA 836 https://openargs.com/oa836-yes-a-court-found-that-trump-incited-an-insurrection-now-what-feat-seth-barrett-tillman/ Anderson v. Griswold https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
22-12-2023 • 56 minuten, 11 seconden
OA847: Why Being A "Former" Government Official is Bad News for Mark Meadows... and Donald Trump
Liz and Andrew of course recorded this show before the big Colorado Supreme Court decision, but rest assured that breakdown is coming! In this episode, Liz and Andrew discuss Trump's hapless legal filings across multiple jurisdictions before diving deeply into a surprising decision from the very conservative 11th Circuit regarding the scope of the federal criminal removal statute. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! There will be no show on Dec. 25 and 27th. Happy Holidays! Notes - Trump DC Cir date set - Jan 9 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208580631.0_2.pdf -Trump - Engoron - evaluation of witness testimony, denial of motion for DV https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=QbK_PLUS_LJnXDL9v6FtzC9ofmw== -11th Cir - Pryor - Mark Meadows https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202312958.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
20-12-2023 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 16 seconden
OA846: Forget Impeaching His Dad, Will Criminal Charges Even Stick Against Hunter Biden?
Liz and Andrew react to the $148 million defamation verdict against Rudy Giuliani by pollworkers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman before tackling the latest barrage of motions to dismiss filed by Hunter Biden's lawyers in the Delaware gun charge case. If you need to cut through some right-wing nonsense over the holidays, this is the episode for you! Notes DOJ Order No. 5730-2023 appointing Weiss https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-08/order.appointment_of_david_c._weiss_as_special_counsel.pdf Hunter Biden MTD - diversion agreement https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.60.0.pdf Hunter Biden MTD - Selective and vindictive prosecution https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.63.0.pdf Hunter Biden MTD - constitution https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.61.0_1.pdf Hunter Biden MTD - Exceeded authority https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.62.0.pdf OA793 https://openargs.com/oa793-the-right-wing-freakout-or-why-hunter-biden-rejected-his-plea-deal-feat-mitchell-epner/ Jury Verdict Sheet Giuliani https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.135.0_1.pdf Jenna Ellis Stipulation to Discipline https://www.coloradosupremecourt.us/PDF/Public/STIPULATION%20TO%20DISCIPLINE%20PURSUANT%20TO%20C.R.C.P.%20242.19.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
18-12-2023 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 5 seconden
OA845: Immunity and Rudy, Part 2
Liz and Andrew continue to cover a bunch of stories with the connected theme of how to push back against Donald Trump's efforts to use anything and everything to postpone his criminal trials. Also, there's rare good news regarding the Supreme Court and its refusal to grant certiorari in Tingley v. Ferguson, meaning that Washington state's law prohibiting conversion therapy stays in place. All that and much, much more, including a breakdown of the last day of Rudy's defamation lawsuit! This is a paid post on Patreon. NotesSCOTUS denies cert in Tingley https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121123zor_e29g.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
15-12-2023 • 1 uur, 6 seconden
OA844: Rudy and Immunity
13-12-2023 • 51 minuten, 37 seconden
OA843: OA Field Trip! (Plus: Hunter Biden’s Taxes) feat. Kel McClanahan
Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Kel McClanahan to tell us about an oral argument at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that you can and should attend in an effort to get the Senate Intelligence Committee’s full report on torture during the Bush administration released to the public! Then, Liz and Andrew break down what’s really going on with the Hunter Biden tax indictment. Notes Hunter Biden tax indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.907805/gov.uscourts.cacd.907805.1.0_1.pdf IRS Criminal Tax Handbook https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/tax_crimes_handbook.pdf USSC on tax fraud https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/tax-fraud Sentencing Guidelines https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2023/GLMFull.pdf Musgrave v. Warner (DC Cir.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66696476/shawn-musgrave-v-mark-warner/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
11-12-2023 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 17 seconden
OA842: Does John Eastman WANT To Be Disbarred? (Maybe.)
Liz and Andrew tackle John Eastman's brief in his disbarment hearing arguing that the 2020 Presidential election was in fact stolen. It was not. In the A story, Andrew and Liz walk through Trump's latest efforts to invade the secrecy of confidential documents in the Southern District of Florida. Notes Moore v. Harperhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3002636935552946163 PA SOS final report on 2020 election https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/BEST/Pages/BEST-Election-Stats.aspx CA State Bar disbar Eastman brief https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/Index/VBqEKKzWq7BHFLcNbcYFBPwEVGppqKqRVh1jPShvzLRW-TqEo4kMqYD8POcD6IXmvjC-TMQt9Ct_mI544fmjiNq7TQItUIXPLobITmdyBQk1?caseNum=SBC-23-O-30029&docType=Pleading&docName=STATE%20BAR%20S%20CLOSING%20BRIEF&docTypeId=269&isVersionId=False&p=0 Eastman brief https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/Index/VBqEKKzWq7BHFLcNbcYFBC23fHVB3vvyF9PMGQpKVVc7_-vQjVVin5csFtC6SOfJDo4RbH-B8wXlyxxx4QUOMENofD03Bn0OynOnilZ86hY1?caseNum=SBC-23-O-30029&docType=Pleading&docName=DR.%20EASTMAN%20S%20POST-HEARING%20BRIEF&eventName=Brief&docTypeId=269&isVersionId=False&p=0 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
8-12-2023 • 53 minuten, 12 seconden
OA841: Sometimes When The President Does It, It IS Illegal!
Liz and Andrew unpack the two recent decisions on Presidential immunity. What does it mean for the civil and criminal cases against Donald Trump? But first, the duo unpack a recent Rule 404 filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith that reveals some (more) disturbing details of how Trump planned to hijack the 2020 Presidential election. In the LONG Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz parse through some seemingly-minor findings and show how they're part of the bad faith effort by Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW, to delay Trump's criminal trial for stealing national security documents. it's a jam-packed episode you won't want to miss! Notes Trump - Chutkan ruling on immunity https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.171.0.pdf Trump DC Cir ruling on immunity https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510.1208575879.0_1.pdf Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 475 U.S. 731 (1982) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2587191009008442950 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
6-12-2023 • 55 minuten, 39 seconden
OA840: Trump Lawyer Alina Habba Speedruns the Professional Responsibility Exam
Liz and Andrew embark on a deep dive into a set of truly wild accusations against Trump's go-to lawyer, Alina Habba, who's accused of manipulating a young server into signing an illegal and one-sided settlement agreement to benefit Donald Trump's Bedminster golf course. Was this really Alina Habba's audition to be the next Michael Cohen? Find out why this case matters and what's coming next! Notes Bianco v. Lamington https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24179145/bianco-v-lamington-farm-club.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
4-12-2023 • 47 minuten, 32 seconden
OA839: Trump Gagged, Comer Spanked, and ... Munsingwear Vacatur??
Liz and Andrew bring you a trio of stories: first, the New York appellate court reinstated the gag order on Donald Trump, prohibiting him from attacking Justice Engoron's staff. Next, learn how Hunter Biden outmaneuvered the GOP buffoons in Congress. Finally, geek out on the Supreme Court docket with Munsingwear! In the Patreon bonus, the two break down whether Trump has been able to sneak assets out of New York and if so, what Special Master Barbara Jones intends to do about it. Notes House Oversight Biden Subpoenas https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-issues-subpoenas-to-biden-family-associates%EF%BF%BC/ Abbe Lowell Letter to James Comer re Hunter Biden Testimony https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018c-161a-dbbc-a1de-7e7e397f0000 NY Trump gag orders reinstated https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=2yAOg8Zx5CTVK5fRESuAVA== Trump petition to 1st AD https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=8mrJZIGwSPZTLMGpK_PLUS_pe_PLUS_g== Kendall v. Doster documents https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kendall-v-doster/ DOJ petition in Kendall for Munsingwear vacatur https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-154/275510/20230816162454819_Kendall%20III%20et%20al.%20v.%20Doster%20et%20al.%20.pdf Kendall v. Doster opp cert https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-154/285403/20231018142033779_23-154%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20Final.pdf Report from Barbara Jones in the Trump Org monitoring https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=tonmcCHZaSG8Oe1NLD6eEg== -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
1-12-2023 • 58 minuten, 1 seconde
OA838: Trump's Lawyers Blame China For Making Him Do That Coup & Oh Rudy
Liz and Andrew dissect Trump's latest request for additional discovery in the DC indictment before analyzing Rudy Giuliani having found the one thing he fears more than Judge Beryl Howell: a jury of his peers! Notes Trump Motion for Discovery https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.167.0.pdf Trump DC indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.1.0_12.pdf Trump DC indictment - PDF copy (scannable) https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf Rudy “Trial Brief” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.107.0.pdf Mwani v. Bin Laden https://casetext.com/case/mwani-v-bin-ladin Freeman/Moss Opp Motion for Bench Trial https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.109.0.pdf Rudy response to Howell Minute Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.110.0.pdf Pence told Jan. 6 special counsel harrowing details about 2020 aftermath, warnings to Trump: Sources https://abcnews.go.com/US/pence-told-jan-6-special-counsel-harrowing-details/story?id=105183391 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
29-11-2023 • 59 minuten, 22 seconden
OA837: BREAKING - Mike Lindell is Lying about Voting Machines (Again!)
Liz has finally beat the flu (or whatever) and makes her triumphant return breaking down a voting machine case in Georgia that is NOT crazy. So, of course, Mike "Lumpy Pillows" Lindell is lying about it. The duo also break down all the developments with Trump's various gag orders. Notes Affidavit in support of Trump gag order to NY First Judicial Department in Trump v. Engoron https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=inVGdvHSdXKWMxr30v8AXw== Trump DC Cir. Letter re: harassment of Engoron’s clerk https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208573931.0_3.pdf Curling v. Raffensperger https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24163431/11-10-23-trial-order-denial-of-summary-judgment.pdf NAACP v. Sanders https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Opinion.pdf 52 USC 10308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10308 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
27-11-2023 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 3 seconden
OA836: Yes, A Court Found That Trump "Incited An Insurrection" - Now What? (feat. Seth Barrett Tillman)
With Liz sidelined, Andrew welcomes back friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman for an in-depth discussion of Anderson v. Griswold, a Colorado state court opinion that found by clear and convincing evidence that Donald Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021. What implications does that have? Listen and find out! This episode was released early for our Patrons and is a paid post on Patreon. Notes Anderson v. Griswoldhttps://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
24-11-2023 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 52 seconden
OA835: Why Harrison Floyd Isn't Going to Jail (& More)
Andrew and Liz tackle three updates: Elon Musk's "thermonuclear" lawsuit against Media Matters; Harrison Floyd's bond revocation hearing; and a truly terrible decision out of the 8th Circuit. Notes NAACP v. Sandershttps://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Opinion.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
22-11-2023 • 42 minuten, 55 seconden
OA834: Elon Musk Will Save Free Speech By Suing Every Media Outlet on Earth
Andrew and an ailing Liz break down Elon Musk's latest threat to try and sue a media outlet critical of Twitter into silence - this time, Media Matters for America - through the lens of his last lawsuit, against the tiny charity the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which produced an investigative report showing that Twitter profits from weaponized antisemitism and white supremacy. Oh, and the duo begin with a Life Comes At You Fast, where Justice Arthur Engoron has already denied the Trump motion for a new trial discussed just last episode! Notes CCDH, Toxic Twitter https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Toxic-Twitter_FINAL.pdf Engoron order denying motion for new trial https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=e7egXMrk5KE0sOyTUjgixg==&system=prod CCDH Motion to Dismiss https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.47.0_1.pdf NY Judicial Ethics Opinion 98-19 https://nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/98-19.htm OA 795 https://openargs.com/oa795-the-x-filings-elon-musks-plan-to-leave-no-lawyer-behind/ Media Matters post 11/16 https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle Initial letters from Musk https://counterhate.com/blog/letters-from-the-lawyers-musk-threatens-ccdh-with-brazen-attempt-to-silence-honest-criticism/ Amended Complaint, X v. CCDH https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.10.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
20-11-2023 • 54 minuten, 47 seconden
OA833: Trump Demands New NY Trial Because Liz Is Mean Online
Liz and Andrew break down the very real question of free speech versus a fair trial when viewed through the lens of (1) Donald Trump's motion for a mistrial in New York and (2) Trump's argument against the gag order to the DC Circuit. Come for the 1966 history, stay for hearing how Trump is going to lose! Oh, and our Liz Dye might have played a role in the whole mistrial thing.... Notes Trump NY motion mistrial https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=N0PX1FMtdplL/b5Oq9DwXg== Trump DC Cir Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208569217.0_1.pdf Trump gag order DC https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.105.0_2.pdf DOJ DC Cir Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208570955.0_4.pdf DC Local Rules https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/local_rules/Local%20Rules%20April_2023%282%29.pdf Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991687764638238096 FRCP 26 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 NYS Crim Pro 280.10 https://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article280.php Wheatley School alumni memo http://www.wheatleyalumni.org/BlogPost/Blogpost-20220911-78.html -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
17-11-2023 • 1 uur, 43 seconden
OA823: The Sam Bankman-Fried Story: Math Whiz Bets He's Smarter Than Prosecutors, Loses (feat. Mitchell Epner)
Liz and Andrew welcome back Mitchell Epner to explain exactly what happened with the Sam Bankman-Fried trial. Notes SBF Superseding indictment https://www.justice.gov/media/1311286/dl?inline= -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
15-11-2023 • 54 minuten, 6 seconden
OA831: Did Judge Aileen Cannon Really Rule Against Trump? (No.)
Liz and Andrew break down a ruling that was surprising to many - Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW, denying Trump's motion to postpone his trial. What does it really mean? Listen and find out! Then, the two break down Trump's litigation strategy (if you can call it that) in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit. In the Patreon bonus, the two discuss Donald Trump's plan to save America from sliding into authoritarianism! Notes Be sure to sign up for Liz's substack! Marcy Wheeler on Trump production https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/10/29/the-piles-of-chris-kise-bullshit-devlin-barrett-claims-to-believe/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
13-11-2023 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 37 seconden
OA830: Trump Eats it on the Witness Stand as Republicans Eat it at the Polls (feat. Joe Dye)
Liz and Andrew break down Donald Trump's testimony in the New York civil investigation. Then, Andrew welcomes back Joe Dye to talk about Tuesday's election results. You won't want to miss it! Notes Engoron PSJ order https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24120504-engoron-decision-sept-2023 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
10-11-2023 • 48 minuten, 48 seconden
OA829: More on the Classified Information Procedures Act (feat. Kel McClanahan)
Today, Liz and Andrew welcome back Kel McClanahan to break down recent Classified Information Procedures Act ("CIPA") rulings in Donald Trump's cases in DC and Florida. What does it portend? Listen and find out! Notes Trump DC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/ Trump SDFL docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490069/united-states-v-trump/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
6-11-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 56 seconden
OA828: Trump Howls As His Boys Plead SO MUCH Amnesia on the Witness Stand
Liz and Andrew catch you up on all of Trump's travails, from the civil investigation in New York to the two federal cases in DC and Florida. Oh, and we also learn more about Halloween from our listeners! Notes Trump DC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/ Trump SDFL docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490069/united-states-v-trump/ SDFL superseding indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.85.0_4.pdf Marcy Wheeler on Trump production https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/10/29/the-piles-of-chris-kise-bullshit-devlin-barrett-claims-to-believe/ Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3500 Underwear ATL https://abovethelaw.com/2022/09/florida-federal-court-using-underwear-shop-for-phone-storage-is-most-florida-thing-ever/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
3-11-2023 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 52 seconden
OA827: The Law of Halloween!
In an entirely Trump-free show, Liz and Andrew break down the law of Halloween! Is it illegal to be a witch? Do you have to disclose your house is haunted before selling it? Can you sue Satan? And much, much more! NotesCharles West, Pope Leo of Bourges, Clerical Immunity and the Early Medieval Secular, in Early Medieval Europe (2021) https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/169821/1/Pope%20Leo%20of%20Bourges%2C%20clerical%20immunity%20and%20the%20early%20medieval%20secular.pdf Constitutions of Clarendon, 1164 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/constcla.asp Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1049931246973296361 Stambovsky v. Ackley https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3290684836490834623 Mayo v Satan https://casetext.com/case/united-states-ex-rel-gerald-mayo-v-satan-and-his-staff 2016 US News article on Creepy Clown Sightings https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-10-31/floridians-arm-themselves-against-creepy-clowns-on-halloween?context=amp Richard Ellis says he represented the seller https://www.ellissothebysrealty.com/blog/2016/10/31/haunted-house-the-legend-of-1-la-veta-place-nyack/ VA Beach 23-3 https://library.municode.com/va/virginia_beach/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH23OF_ARTIMIOF_S23-3PRTRTRAC Forsyth, IL 94-155 https://forsyth-il.gov/vertical/sites/%7B18717005-44FD-438D-B0BC-B86101984F4F%7D/uploads/Master_Copy.pdf Alabama can’t dress like clergy https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2020/title-13a/chapter-14/section-13a-14-4/ Hollywood silly string ordinance https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2004/04-0772_ORD_176176_10-06-2004.pdf Fortune-telling in SF https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/08/fortunetelling_.html Fortune-telling New Orleans https://library.municode.com/la/new_orleans/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH54CRCO_ARTVIOFAFPUGE OA 648 https://openargs.com/oa648-more-from-the-right-wing-war-on-free-speech/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
1-11-2023 • 55 minuten, 20 seconden
OA826: Trump (Re-)Gagged, Ivanka Subpoenaed & SCOTUS Has D*cks on the Docket
Liz and Andrew tackle two stories. In the A segment, the duo discuss Trump's civil trial in New York and his (so far unsuccessful) efforts to block the gag order entered against him in federal court in DC. Then they break down a case headed for oral argument at the Supreme Court in a few days, Vidal v. Elster, which presents the unfortunately timely question of whether someone can trademark a joke about Donald Trump's... hands (without his permission). SHOW NOTES Trump DC docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148 Trump Reply Sup Stay of Gag Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.123.0_3.pdf Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991687764638238096 In re Brunetti https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14505087584960254163 15 USC § 1052 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052 Vidal v. Elster petitioner’s brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-704/272918/20230725195926740_22-704tsUnitedStates.pdf Vidal v. Elster opposition brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-704/278867/20230905184138600_Elster%20Merits%20Brief.pdf OA 165 https://openargs.com/oa165-you-heard-it-here-first-abortion-rights-gun-control-and-offensive-trademarks/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
30-10-2023 • 1 uur, 43 seconden
OA825: Speech is Free, Witness Intimidation Will Cost Ya
Liz and Andrew tackle two stories today. First, they break down exactly what is going on with Trump's various gag orders and his behavior in court in New York. Then, it's time for a classic deep dive about qui tam actions and how they've been hijacked with the help of possibly Trump's worst judicial appointment and weaponized against women. It's a story you need to know. In the Patreon bonus, the duo compare and contrast legal ethics between George Santos and Donald Trump and come out in favor of... George Santos??!? You heard us! Notes Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Subchapter III https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/subtitle-III/chapter-37/subchapter-III 31 U.S.C. § 3730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3730 Doe v. PP Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343972/gov.uscourts.txnd.343972.2.0_5.pdf Kacsmaryk 2022 Order denying Motion to Dismiss https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343972/gov.uscourts.txnd.343972.71.0.pdf George Santos Superseding Indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086.50.0_1.pdf DOJ Conflicts motion- George Santos / Joseph Murray https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086.51.0_2.pdf Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 US 1030 (1991) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991687764638238096 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
27-10-2023 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 2 seconden
OA824: MAGA Mean Girl Jenna Ellis Shoves Rudy Under the Fulton County Bus
Liz and Andrew urge caution on some breaking news stories, including the ABC report that Mark Meadows has "flipped." Then, the duo tackle the Jenna Ellis plea in Fulton County, GA and a barrage of bizarre filings by Donald Trump in his federal case in DC. In the Patreon Bonus, Liz and Andrew analyze Jenna Ellis's legal advice as to how to steal the 2020 Election. Notes Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 Jenna Ellis plea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu7uzRFDpTY Jenna Ellis original Fulton County indictment https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2108/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT Jenna Ellis superseding Accusation https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24079495/criminal-accusation-for-ellis-102423.pdf Jenna Ellis sparklemagic law memos! https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-a4d0-dac5-abff-a5ddcf600000 OCGA 16-10-1 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-16/chapter-10/article-1/section-16-10-1/ OCGA § 16-10-20 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-16/chapter-10/article-2/section-16-10-20/ Raffensperger letter https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Letter_to_Congress_from_Secretary_Raffensperger_%281-6-21%29.pdf Trump DC Indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_7.pdf 113 - MTD on Constitutional Grounds https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.113.0_1.pdf 114 - MTD on Statutory Grounds https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.114.0_2.pdf 115 - Motion to Strike https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.115.0.pdf 116 - MTD for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.116.0_1.pdf
25-10-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 8 seconden
OA823: Alex Jones Can't Duck the Connecticut Sandy Hook Plaintiffs (& We're Cheeseless!)
Liz and Andrew cover two main stories: (1) the plea bargain agreed to by Ken Cheseboro in Fulton County, Georgia, and (2) the ruling out of bankruptcy court that certain debts are "non-dischargeable in bankruptcy." What does that mean? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz deep dive into the specific jury instructions and more to figure out why the results were different for similar plaintiffs in Texas. Notes Heslin v. Jones, Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66982798/heslin-v-jones/ Wheeler v. Jones, Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66983329/wheeler-v-jones/ 11 U.S. Code § 523 - Exceptions to discharge https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523 The Federalist, “Sidney Powell’s Plea Proves Fulton County Prosecutor Went Nuclear To Get Trump” https://thefederalist.com/2023/10/20/sidney-powells-plea-proves-fulton-county-prosecutor-went-nuclear-to-get-trump/ Justice Engoron Gag Order https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=jHhVNANx9_PLUS_/cjyUwT3y0zw== US v. Trump SDFL Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490069/united-states-v-trump/ US v. Trump DDC Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/?order_by=desc -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
23-10-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 53 seconden
OA822: The Cheese Stands Alone!
Liz and Andrew break down Sidney Powell's plea deal and much, much more! Notes Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v SEC https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60626-CV0.pdf ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND FIRST AMENDMENT (Cheseboro & Powell) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24040510-23sc188947-order-sc-1st-amend-denial Jack Smith DC indictment https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf Sidney Powell Waiver of Indictment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24041662/sidney-powell-deft-waiver-of-indictment.pdf Sidney Powell Accusation https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24041649/23sc190370-criminal-accusation.pdf OCGA § 21-2-597. Intentional Interference With Performance of Election Duties https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-21/chapter-2/article-15/section-21-2-597/ Trump Lawyer Acknowledged Political Agenda in Election Suit, Emails Show https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/us/politics/kenneth-chesebro-trump-2020-election.html -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
20-10-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 53 seconden
OA821: Trump Gagged, Lindell Dragged & Jim Jordan... Can't Do Math?
Liz and Andrew break down the mechanics of the vote for Speaker of the House, explain the incredibly narrow gag order issued by Judge Chutkan in the DC insurrection case against Donald Trump, and finish with a hilarious story of how Mike Lindell can't keep his terrible lawyers. Notes Tweet re Hannity https://twitter.com/juliegraceb/status/1713694255841992765?s=46&t=-f7nMHlPqmL9yztYDAx_1g Jan 6th Committee Final Report https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/acac13_ffa28ed6c2694272a265860e447122c7.pdf Lindell Eric Coomer Reply Supporting Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.215068/gov.uscourts.cod.215068.210.0.pdf Written gag order Chutkan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.105.0_2.pdf Powell Motion in Limine https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24032438/powell-motion-in-limine-on-legal-authority-issue.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
18-10-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 22 seconden
OA820: Bad Judges, Bad Judges, Whatcha Gonna Do?
Liz and Andrew round up a bunch of stories, from the Speaker of the House race to the responses to various trans and drag show bans. -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
16-10-2023 • 50 minuten, 17 seconden
OA819: Trump's Participation Trophy
Liz and Andrew cover a bunch of stories, from the hapless Republican effort to find a Speaker of the House to this week at the Supreme Court & much, much more! -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
13-10-2023 • 55 minuten, 34 seconden
OA818: Speaker of the House George Santos
Liz and Andrew tackle all the stories in the news, from the dysfunctional House of Representatives to the latest developments in Fulton County, Georgia. -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
11-10-2023 • 59 minuten, 6 seconden
OA817: CIPA Schmeepa (feat. Kel McClanahan)
Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Kel McClanahan to break down all of the national security developments in the Trump indictments. Find out what might be coming next in the document retention case.... -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
9-10-2023 • 56 minuten, 59 seconden
OA816: Oh, Rudy!
Liz and Andrew try to cover all the breaking news of the past two days, including Trump's civil and criminal trials, good news out of Alabama, and check out the tire tracks on Sidney Powell's back that seem to spell "Trump." Because it's Listener Friday, the duo answer a question about civil procedure and conflicts of laws that provides the perfect throughline to perhaps the dumbest Rudy Giuliani lawsuit yet. You won't want to miss it! Notes Trump MTD DC https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.74.0.pdf Sidney Powell MTD and general demurrer https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23994770/georgia-v-powell-demurrermotion-to-dismiss.pdf Judge Kaplan Order on Motion in Limine in Carroll III. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.217.0.pdf Trump-appointed US appeals judge calls social media 'dangerous' https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-us-appeals-judge-calls-social-media-dangerous-2023-10-03/ Giuliani’s Drinking, Long a Fraught Subject, Has Trump Prosecutors’ Attention https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/04/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-drinking.html -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
Today, Liz and Andrew tackle the two biggest stories: Matt Gaetz having ousted Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, and Donald Trump’s civil trial in New York. All that AND an Andrew Was Wrong featuring more on the 14th Amendment. In the Patreon bonus, the two tackle a Liz Was Not Wrong about why Trump doesn’t have a jury trial in New York. Hint: yes you can still make fun of Alina Habba! Notes Justice Engoron Order https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q== OAG v. Trump appellate decision https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=ReQsiVyUL/PE7F5_PLUS_RuqoMw== CBS News story on Trump conceding to $27 million valuation for Mar-a-Lago https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-mar-a-lago-1-8-billion-own-company-said-it-was-too-high/?espv=1 SCOTUS orders 10/2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100223zor_5368.pdf Eastman petition for cert https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-1138/267263/20230519131455424_230516%20PWC%20corrected.pdf Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 FC indictment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23909542/23sc188947-criminal-indictment.pdf Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Governor Newsom, Laphonza Butler, and the Constitution’s Plain Text,’ New Reform Club (Oct. 2, 2023, 3:54 PM), https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/10/governor-newsom-laphonza-butler-and.html>; Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen,’ 28(2) Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth. circa Mar. 2024) (posted on: Sept. 12, 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4568771>. Is There A Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial of Equitable Defenses in New York?, 74 St. Johns L. Rev. 1 (2000) https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=lawreview -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
4-10-2023 • 58 minuten, 34 seconden
OA814: Kevin McCarthy Is An Ex-Speaker & Scott Hall Is An Ex-Defendant
Andrew and Liz explain the recent Congressional funding bill, what it means for the country (good things!) & what it means for Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (bad things). What's a motion to vacate? Listen and find out! Then, of course, the duo return to discuss all the recent developments in the RICO indictment in Fulton County, Georgia, including the plea deal by bail bondsman & former Donald Trump co-defendant Scott Hall. What does it all mean? We tell you! Notes Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 FC indictment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23909542/23sc188947-criminal-indictment.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
2-10-2023 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 3 seconden
OA813: BREAKING - Trump Org Gets Death Penalty, Organs To Be Sold For Parts (feat. Mitchell Epner)
Liz and Andrew record a day early to discuss the breaking news out of state court in New York granting partial summary judgment to New York Attorney General Letitia James's civil lawsuit against Donald Trump, his kids, and his businesses over phony valuation statements. The upshot is that the Trump businesses will be dissolved as a matter of law. Mitchell Epner guests to help break down the nuances of New York law and procedure. It's not a criminal conviction, but it's a hell of a start! Notes Justice Engoron Order https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q== -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
28-9-2023 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 37 seconden
OA812: Classified Information and Judge Aileen "Loose" Cannon (feat. Kel McClanahan)
Today, Andrew and Liz welcome back to the show National Security Counselor Kel McClanahan to break down a bunch of filings pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act, and tell us how to keep our eyes on Judge Cannon! Notes Chris Geidner "Law Dork" on the Fifth Circuit https://www.lawdork.com/p/fifth-circuit-adf-training-book-ban-social-media CIPA - Appendix 13 to Title 18 of the US Code https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456 Trump’s motion for CIPA Section 4 scheduling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.160.0.pdf DOJ CIPA Section 3 Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.162.0.pdf Nauta/DeOliveira CIPA Section 3 Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.163.0.pdf DOJ CIPA Motion Under Seal in DC ( cover page) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/59/1/united-states-v-trump/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
27-9-2023 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 29 seconden
OA811: Bob Menendez is NOT Being Indicted For Bribery
Liz and Andrew break down the recent indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez plus much, much more. Notes Menendez indictment https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/u.s._v._menendez_et_al_indictment.pdf McDonnell v. US, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7646544289520795258 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
25-9-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 40 seconden
OA810: So Major League Baseball And A Unicorn Walk Into The Supreme Court...
Liz and Andrew break down the week's developments before heading into a deep dive about baseball's antitrust exemption and a new petition for certiorari filed by... unicorns? Even if you're not a sports fan, you won't want to miss this one! Notes OA 696 https://openargs.com/oa696-in-which-james-okeefe-pretends-to-be-a-journalist/ Fulton County GA - DA Willis Motion notifying Judge McAfee of potential conflicts https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23986592/23-0920-notice-of-potential-conflicts-of-interest-concerning-attorneys.pdf Anna Bower, Fake Crocodiles and Fake Electors in Fulton County https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/fake-crocodiles-and-fake-electors-in-fulton-county Project Veritas Suspends All Operations Amid Devastating Layoffs and Fundraising Struggles https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-project-veritas-suspends-all-operations-amid-devastating-layoffs-and-fundraising-struggles/ Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5457794249908053604 Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1315902585984637212 Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1568944639886480553 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
22-9-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 36 seconden
OA809: Will This One Weird Trick Keep Trump Out of the White House? (Part 1)
In this Episode, Andrew and Liz outline the issues underlying the recent law review article by Professors Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen suggesting that Trump can be disqualified from the Presidency by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. After that, the two return to the linkroll to discuss the many, many developments in and around Trumpworld, including whatever happened to that guy Ray Epps that Tucker Carlson insists is a federal agent plant? (Hint: he's not.) In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew describe more of the sad legal trevails of David Shafer, cosplay elector. Notes OA 35 https://openargs.com/oa35-emoluments-clause-wseth-barrett-tillman-part-1/ OA 36 https://openargs.com/oa36-emoluments-clause-wseth-barrett-tillman-part-2/ Baude & Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three”, 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2024) https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=995103073068092081092071118086002065023073053045056031120084030066073022088005028078011036036121038023044082013118012025083101019006033017032126091082092002112010046001043008098085115025107069005116107119092023024116117112126020097081101012025127123&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE In re Griffin (Griffin’s Case), 11 F. Cas. 7 (1869) https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0011.f.cas/0011.f.cas.0007.html US v. Ray Epps docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67807327/united-states-v-epps/ Anna Bower, On Clerks and Caimans: Jeffrey Clark’s Removal Hearing https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/on-clerks-and-caimans-jeffrey-clark-s-removal-hearing -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
20-9-2023 • 52 minuten, 14 seconden
OA808: Ken Paxton Acquitted & You Won't Believe Who's Stumping for Trump's Lawyers
Liz and Andrew talk about the surprising acquittal of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on all 16 articles of impeachment before discussing the companion efforts to gum up the works in the attempt to hold Donald Trump and his co-conspirators responsible for trying to steal the 2020 Presidential Election. In the Patreon Bonus, Liz and Andrew set the record straight on Michael Flynn in light of the government's recent motion to dismiss Flynn's attempt to sue for wrongful prosecution. (Hint: he was not wrongfully prosecuted.) Notes Middlebrooks order dismissing Trump's motion to disqualify https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.342.0.pdf DOJ motion to dismiss in Flynn v. US https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.411523/gov.uscourts.flmd.411523.38.0.pdf DOJ’s reply to Trump’s motion for Chutkan recusal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.54.0_2.pdf Trump reply brief supporting DQ Chutkan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.58.0.pdf Clark reply sup removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319419/gov.uscourts.gand.319419.41.0.pdf Meese amicus in lawsuit against MLB https://theacru.org/wp-content/uploads/Job-Creators-Network-Amicus-Brief.pdf Axios, “Scoop: How GOP pressured Texas senators over Paxton's impeachment trial” https://www.axios.com/2023/09/17/ken-paxton-texas-impeachment-gop -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
18-9-2023 • 57 minuten, 55 seconden
OA807: Hunter Biden Indicted, Cheese Gets Cut & Rudy... Is Still Rudy
Hunter Biden was indicted; what does it mean? Liz and Andrew bring you that, plus an extra-length linkroll today to cover all the week's developments, all before tackling a listener question about the federal removal statute. In the Patreon bonus, the two talk more about the social media case of Missouri v. Biden, which heads to the Supreme Court. Notes SCOTUS administrative stay in Missouri v. Biden https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/333/missouri-v-biden/ Trump SDFL Docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/ Cannon order granting protective order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.150.0.pdf Willis brief on federal removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.84175/gov.uscourts.ca11.84175.20.0_4.pdf 2018 GAO gun report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf OA 778 https://openargs.com/oa778-geese-ganders-affirmative-action-are-we-overreacting-to-sffa-v-harvard-feat-guha-krishnamurthi/ OA 790 https://openargs.com/oa790-the-trump-prosecutions-a-tale-of-two-courtooms/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
15-9-2023 • 53 minuten, 31 seconden
OA806: Person Woman Man Camera... RICO
Liz and Andrew begin with a discussion of Kevin McCarthy's efforts to impeach Ice Cream Joe before the linkroll roundup of all the major developments over the past few days. Then, in the main segment, the two discuss the fate of the right-wing nonsense suit in Missouri v. Biden, in which a Trump-appointed judge essentially prevented the Biden administration from reporting nonsense on social media. Did the Fifth Circuit save the day?? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, the duo dive deeply into the Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury report that Donald Trump tried so hard to disappear. What... good news for Trump might it hold?? Notes OA 713 https://openargs.com/oa713-state-ags-sue-anthony-fauci-for-booting-them-off-twitter/ OA 739 https://openargs.com/oa739-5-million-says-mike-lindell-is-full-of-stuffing/ OA 771 https://openargs.com/oa771-trump-judge-burns-down-first-amendment-to-save-free-speech/ In re Lindell Mgmt LLC Litigation Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67410449/in-re-lindell-management-llc-litigation/?order_by=desc Trump DC Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/ Trump Motion to recuse Chutkan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.50.0_10.pdf Chesebro MTD Fulton County https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23972733-23sc188947-motion-13-chesebro-mtd Missouri v Biden docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67563473/state-of-missouri-v-biden/ Missouri v Biden 5th Circuit opinion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.238.1.pdf Liz ATL on Trump’s Motion to Recuse Chutkan https://abovethelaw.com/2023/09/trump-quits-shitposting-about-federal-judges-to-demand-they-recuse-to-promote-faith-in-judiciary/ 2019 OLC Memo on Impeachment https://www.justice.gov/d9/opinions/attachments/2020/01/20/2020-01-19-impeach-invest.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
13-9-2023 • 52 minuten, 28 seconden
OA805: Why Mark Meadows Getting Tossed Back To State Court Is Very Bad News For Trump
Liz and Andrew break down all the latest developments before taking a deep dive into the significance of Mark Meadows's stunning loss in trying to remove his criminal indictment from state court in Fulton County, Georgia to federal court. What does that mean for Donald Trump? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss the testimony of a key upcoming witness who definitely has the goods on Donald Trump. Notes OA 785 https://openargs.com/oa785-all-gerrymandering-is-local-feat-joe-dye/ Coomer v. Lindell Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63296393/coomer-v-lindell/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc State of GA v. Clark, Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67713789/the-state-of-georgia-v-clark/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Order granting injunctive relief in Milligan v. Allen https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179302/gov.uscourts.alnd.179302.272.0.pdf Giuliani Motion for Indictment Perfect in Form https://cms.themessenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Giuliani-motion-9.8.23.pdf Donaghue Jan 6th testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034600/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034600.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
11-9-2023 • 55 minuten, 7 seconden
OA804: Trump Lawyers Enter the Find Out Phase
Liz and Andrew try a lightning round segment, answer a listener question, and then update you on the travails of Trump's lawyers as defendants in Fulton County, Georgia and as conflicted-out scoundrels in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Notes Hunter Biden Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67511701/united-states-v-biden/?order_by=desc US v. Abbott Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67630985/united-states-v-abbott/?order_by=desc Rejection Trump Boys’ Motion for Stay https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=7VeIswUTaqJ_PLUS_2jqwndUGqQ==&system=prod Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 Chesebro Motion to dismiss https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2159/MOTION-TO-DISMIS-UNDER-THE-SUPREMECY-CLAUSE---CHESEBORO DA Fani Willis letter to Jim Jordan https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23941366/jim-jordan-letter.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
8-9-2023 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 55 seconden
OA803: Will Trump Get To Ditch Those Other 18 Losers Who Got Indicted With Him??
Okay, so it's an all-Trump episode... but you won't want to miss Liz and Andrew breaking down whether Donald Trump can sever his case from his co-defendants in Fulton County, along with updates on the Trump DC case and the impending disbarment of Trump's little buddy and insurrectionist mastermind, John Eastman. In the Patreon bonus, the duo update you on Day 1 of Trump lackey Pete Navarro's trial for failure to comply with the January 6th Committee's congressional subpoena. Notes Trump DC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump DOJ reply Opp Motion to Vacate https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.49.0.pdf Perry DC Cir docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66700176/in-re-sealed-case/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Willis Motion to Advise Defendants https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2143/MOTION-08-31-2023-111043-39243051-4DD6F39C-4CF9-485F-B790-F0FC73AC40C5 Trump Motion to Sever https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23933074/23sc188947-motion-6.pdf Jan 10 2021 Eastman email to Valerie Moon https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.350.8_4.pdf Liz Wonkette on Gohmert https://www.wonkette.com/p/dumbest-man-in-congress-files-election-lawsuit-that-would-make-a-krakenhead-blush -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
6-9-2023 • 58 minuten, 58 seconden
OA802: The Case Against Fani Willis? (feat. Andrew Fleischman)
Today's show welcomes Georgia criminal defense and appellate attorney Andrew Fleischman to the show to help answer Liz and Andrew's questions about the case against Donald Trump and his criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia. You might be surprised at some of the things the major news outlets aren't getting right.... Notes DA Fani Willis’s Motion to Advise Defendants https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2143/MOTION-08-31-2023-111043-39243051-4DD6F39C-4CF9-485F-B790-F0FC73AC40C5 Chesebro’s Response to Motion to Advise Defendants https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2152/23SC188947-RESPONSE-TO-STATES-MOTION-KENNETH-JOHNS-CHESEBRO -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
4-9-2023 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 19 seconden
OA801: MAGAworld Prepares to BUT HER EMAILS Biden; Trump Lawyers Turn on Each Other
Liz and Andrew tackle the latest right-wing nonsense freakout talking point: that Joe Biden, as Vice-President, used secret email accounts to backchannel his criminal plotting to his son Hunter. Learn how every bit of this claim is complete nonsense as we break down the latest FOIA lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Law center. After that, the two discuss Sidney Powell's hilarious motion to sever her criminal indictment from everyone else in Fulton County, Georgia AND the ongoing saga of Trumpland lawyers and their conflicts. And if all that isn't enough, in the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew talk about the most recent developments with Trump lackey Peter Navarro. Notes New York Post story on Biden's emails https://nypost.com/2023/08/29/biden-sent-5400-secret-emails-under-different-pseudonyms/ SLF v. NARA complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319627/gov.uscourts.gand.319627.1.0.pdf SLF docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67738744/southeastern-legal-foundation-inc-v-national-archives-and-records/ Sidney Powell Motion to Sever https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23932460/23sc188947-motion-4-powell-sever.pdf Sidney Powell J6 Testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000082296/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000082296.pdf Fulton County indictment https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2108/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT De Oliveira opposition to Garcia https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.137.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
1-9-2023 • 52 minuten, 55 seconden
OA800: Mark Meadows Forfeits The Fifth; Will He Soon Flip on Trump?? (feat. Mitchell Epner)
It's our 800th Episode! Surprisingly, Mark Meadows testified at his removal hearing in Georgia, which means that he has likely waived his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. To understand what happened and why, Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Mitchell Epner. Could this mean that Meadows will flip on Trump -- and if so, when?? Listen and find out! Notes GA v. Meadows federal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67694389/the-state-of-georgia-v-meadows/ Judge Jones order re: supplemental briefing in Meadows https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/ Meadows emergency motion for removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.17.0_1.pdf Meadows motion to dismiss on supremacy clause grounds https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.16.1.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
30-8-2023 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 34 seconden
OA799: Trumpland: Come for the Federal Court Follies, Stay for the Glaring Ethical Conflicts
Today, Liz and Andrew tell you everything you need to know about Mark Meadows's efforts to remove the Fulton County, GA RICO indictment to federal court; about Sidney Powell's efforts to demand a speedy trial; and about the rising tension between Donald Trump and the rest of his co-conspirators. After that, the duo break down the impending ethics crisis in the Southern District of Florida documents retention case, and discuss how Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW, is on the verge of ignoring very real conflicts that could prevent Trump's two co-defendants from getting a fair trial. Notes Fulton County GA docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 Georgia v. Meadows removal (federal) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67694389/the-state-of-georgia-v-meadows/ State of Georgia v. Clark (federal removal docket) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67713789/the-state-of-georgia-v-clark/ GA v. Latham federal removal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67730534/the-state-of-georgia-v-latham/ Latham removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319599/gov.uscourts.gand.319599.1.0.pdf Chesebro speedy trial motion https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23925099/23sc188947-demand-for-speedy-trial.pdf Sidney Powell speedy trial motion https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2126/DEMAND-FOR-SPEEDY-TRIAL-SIDNEY-POWELL Meadows reply sup removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.45.0_1.pdf Ulbrich v. State, 870 S.E.2d 859 (2022) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8364812589412216761 CNN on identity of 30 unindicted co-conspirators https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/politics/trump-georgia-30-unindicted-co-conspirators/index.html -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
28-8-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 40 seconden
OA798: Mugshotpalooza: And Trump Makes 19!
Today is a good day. Liz and Andrew enjoy the string of losses dealt to the Trump criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia and then follow that up with some listener questions! If you wonder why it matters whether Mark Meadows can remove the case to federal court, this show is for you! If you're curious as to why some defendants want a speedy trial while others (*cough* Donald Trump) want to wait a decade, this show is for you! And if you just want to kick back and enjoy the criminal justice system at work, this show is definitely for you. In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz break down the law of severance and discuss whether Trump will be able to get out from his 18 cronies. Notes Fulton County, GA docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 Georgia v. Meadows removal (federal) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67694389/the-state-of-georgia-v-meadows/ 5 U.S.C. § 7323 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7323 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
25-8-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 40 seconden
OA797: All My Indictments - As the Trump Turns
Liz and Andrew check in on the latest developments from the Trump indictments in Fulton County, GA with a RICOsplainer and a gaggle of removals; in Washington, DC with a complaint about a Statue of Liberty-sized mountain of discovery; and in the Southern District of Florida with an argument so bad it took Stan Woodward to make it. In the Patreon bonus, the duo tackle yet another chimera bred by Jeff "Oil Spill" Clark. Notes Georgia v. Trump (Fulton County) docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 State of GA v. Meadows, federal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67694389/the-state-of-georgia-v-meadows/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc US v. Trump, DC Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/?order_by=desc Trump DC Opposition to trial date https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.30.0_4.pdf US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/ DOJ Motion for Garcia hearing https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.123.0_1.pdf Nauta/Woodward opp Garcia hearing https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.126.0_2.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
23-8-2023 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 36 seconden
OA796: Will Trump's Big Mouth Land Him In The Big House? (feat. Chris Regan)
Liz and Andrew discuss developments in the Fulton County, Georgia indictment with respect to Mark Meadows before welcoming guest Chris Regan to discuss the "two systems of justice" in our country: one for every other criminal defendant, and one for Donald Trump. The interview ends with a discussion of West Virginia politics and the future of Joe Manchin that you don't want to miss! Notes Meadows motion to dismiss on supremacy clause https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.16.1.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
21-8-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 4 seconden
OA795: The X Filings - Elon Musk's Plan to Leave No Lawyer Behind
Liz and Andrew bring you a (mostly) Trump-free show discussing all things Twitter, including the recent sanctions imposed for failure to comply with a search warrant, a lawsuit against the former Twitter lawyers, and a truly oppressive lawsuit designed to deter a charity that's critical of... Elon Musk's policies. NotesX v. Wachtell, Complaint https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/dwvkdolbxpm/X%20Corp%20v%20Wachtell%20-%2020230705.pdf X v. CCDH Amended Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.10.0.pdf July 20, 2023 X Cease and Desist letter to CCDH https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/07.20.2023-Letter-to-Imran-Ahmed.pdf Twitter search warrant trial transcript https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/23sc31%20Attachment%20A%20-%20Documents%20unsealed%20with%20redactions.pdf New York Times reporting on hate speech on Twitter https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech.html CCDH, Toxic Twitter https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Toxic-Twitter_FINAL.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
18-8-2023 • 56 minuten, 4 seconden
OA794: Trump Has 91 Problems, And A RICO Is One
It's here! Liz and Andrew break down the 41-count, 19-defendant indictment of Donald Trump on state criminal charges in Fulton County, Georgia. Notes Trump Fulton County, GA indictment https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000189-f730-dc32-ab89-f7fc1f760000 -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
15-8-2023 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 16 seconden
OA793: The Right-Wing Freakout, Or, Why Hunter Biden Rejected His Plea Deal (feat. Mitchell Epner)
Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Mitchell Epner for an episode dedicated to understanding the right wing's latest distractions, including their bizarre and wrong argument that the DOJ corruptly agreed to funnel a sweetheart deal to Hunter Biden. Find out the truth - including why Hunter Biden's lawyers rejected the plea deal! - in this episode. You won't want to miss it! -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
13-8-2023 • 57 minuten, 8 seconden
OA792: Eastman & The Cheese - The Anatomy Of Co-Conspirators Two and Five
We're back to a Trump show as Liz and Andrew break down the latest Trump filing in the Southern District of Florida documents case before moving on to DC to discuss Co-Conspirators 2 and 5, John Eastman and Ken Chesebro, particularly in light of the latest email discovered in which the Cheese suggests everybody ought to do some light criming! Notes US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/ SDFL order striking GJ evidence https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf Trump Objection to Proposed Protective Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.104.0.pdf Eastman motion to stay disbarment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23901160/sbc-23-o-30029-respondents-motion-for-abatement-of-state-bar-disciplinary-proceeding-declaration-of-zachary-mayer.pdf Trump DC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Greg Jacob Jan 6 testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479.pdf Chesebro Dec. 6 memo https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/chesebro-dec-6-memo/ce55d6abd79c2c71/full.pdf OA 782, Debunking Hawaii 1960 Precedent https://openargs.com/oa782-no-shut-up-republicans-do-not-get-to-steal-elections-because-of-hawaii-in-1960/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
11-8-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 14 seconden
OA791: Trump Judge Orders Religious "Sensitivity" Training From A Hate Group
Yes, you read that correctly. This is a classic OA deep dive, in which Liz and Andrew break down a disturbing sanctions order issued by a Trump-appointed judge in Texas who, all on his own, decided to order Southwest Airlines to fly out a bigot from the Alliance Defending Freedom to teach their lawyers how to be bigots. It's bad. Notes Geidner substack https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-orders-adf-religious-liberty-training Carter Amended Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.9.0.pdf Carter Jury verdict https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.348.0.pdf Court Dec. 5, 2022 Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.374.0_1.pdf Southwest email of “Recent Court Decision” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.383.2.pdf Southwest Opposition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.394.0.pdf SPLC on ADF https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom ADF intervention brief https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/adf-ap-and-others-v-france-echr-brief.pdf -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
10-8-2023 • 46 minuten, 22 seconden
OA790: The Trump Prosecutions: A Tale of Two Courtooms
Liz and Andrew compare and contrast procedural motions in both the Southern District of Florida (the document retention case) and the District of Columbia (the conspiracy to overthrow the elections case). What does a motion for a protective order tell us about how Special Counsel Jack Smith intends to prosecute both cases? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz updates us on developments in the E. Jean Carroll trial. Notes US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/ Cannon 8/7 order striking pleadings https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf TRUMP RESPONSE TO PROTECTIVE ORDER https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.14.0_5.pdf Fed R. Crim. P. 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 OA 788 https://openargs.com/oa788-all-my-conflicts-a-discussion-of-trumps-lawyers-more-feat-mitchell-epner/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
Liz and Andrew break down the weekend's developments in Trump's criminal case in DC for conspiring to steal the 2020 election, including a rundown of the terrible arguments being made by his newest lawyer, John Lauro. Notes U.S. v. Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc US v. Trump motion for protective order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.0_11.pdf Proposed DOJ protective order - tracks Judge Nichols order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.1_6.pdf Trump motion for extension of time https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.11.0_2.pdf DOJ opposition to Trump motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.12.0_1.pdf Hammerschmidt v. US, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1069163203100596643 Rolling Stone, Jack Smith Has an Indictment. Trump Has a Massive Plan for Revenge https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-jack-smith-indictment-jan6-justice-department-1234800968/ -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
7-8-2023 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 10 seconden
OA788: All My Conflicts: A Discussion of Trump's Lawyers & More (feat. Mitchell Epner)
Liz and Andrew welcome back to the show Mitchell Epner, who helps break down today's arraignment of Donald Trump in DC, with a particular focus on the conflicts of interest surrounding Stan Woodward (in Florida) and Todd Blanche (in DC). Notes US v. Trump (DC) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/ Blanche PHV https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.7.0.pdf US v. Trump (SDFL) Garcia motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.97.0.pdf US v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (1975) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2468718350509973831 Liz's Wonkette on “Free Speech” defense https://www.wonkette.com/p/no-shut-up-new-york-times-the-first -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
4-8-2023 • 55 minuten, 41 seconden
OA787: Trump Indictment 3 - Because It's Still A Big Lie Even If You Pretend to Believe It
It's INDICTMENT DAY! Liz and Andrew release an emergency episode one day early that tells you everything you need to know about the just-released Trump DC indictment! Notes TRUMP DC Indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf J6 committee report https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf Ricky Vaughn Complaint https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2021/01/27/mackey_complaint_0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
2-8-2023 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 44 seconden
OA786: Can Donald Trump Really Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan?
Liz and Andrew begin by discussing the latest developments in Fulton County, Georgia. No, it's not a Trump indictment - but it is the next best thing! After that, the duo break down Trump's latest LOLsuit loss in Trump v. CNN, and discuss how Trump may aim to leverage that loss into an argument to overturn the most important Supreme Court case in terms of press freedom: New York Times v. Sullivan. Notes OA 744 https://openargs.com/oa744-georgia-fake-electors-scheme-gets-real-feat-lawfares-anna-bower/ McBurney order denying Motion to Quash, Preclude, and Recuse https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2057/EX-PARTE-FILING-7-31-23 Fulton County docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc Trump v. CNN complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.1.0.pdf Order dismissing Trump v. CNN https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.31.0_1.pdf State v. Lampl, 770 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13555564276998303856 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625 Carson Holloway, “Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan”, The American Conservative, Sep. 9, 2022. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/overturn-new-york-times-v-sullivan/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
1-8-2023 • 50 minuten, 50 seconden
OA785: All Gerrymandering is Local (feat. Joe Dye)
Liz and Andrew welcome a very special guest expert to break down redistricting in Alabama, Miami, and elsewhere in light of Allen v. Milligan. This is an unpaid post on Patreon. Notes Grace, Inc. v. Miami https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372.94.0.pdf Merrill v. Milligan (2022) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf Allen v. Milligan (2023) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
31-7-2023 • 52 minuten, 39 seconden
OA784: Trump Sends Goons To Destroy The Evidence: Is That Bad?
HERE IT IS! Liz and Andrew break down a rapid response to the superseding indictment of Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. As a bonus, the duo also discuss today's DOJ filing for a protective order and what it tells us about Trump's strategy (hint: it's greymail). Notes Trump Superseding Indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.85.0_1.pdf Trump Superseding indictment summary https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.86.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
28-7-2023 • 51 minuten, 59 seconden
OA783: Hunter Biden Plea Goes Sideways, Fox News Goes Nuts
Liz and Andrew break down the latest developments in Hunter Biden's plea deal and help inoculate you against the coming right-wing storm of misinformation suggesting something nefarious. In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz take a deep look at the Trump SDFL docket and discover something very interesting about Special Counsel Jack Smith. Notes Liz’s ATL on Giuliani https://t.co/CN4aal5bx9 DOJ Press release https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/pr/tax-and-firearm-charges-filed-against-robert-hunter-biden DOJ Information 2 - tax https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/rhb_information_2.pdf DOJ Information 1 - firearm https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/rhb_information1.pdf DOJ Agreement to produce Weiss https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23886334/doj-letter-weiss-testify.pdf Fed R. Crim. Pro. 11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11 Jason Smith amicus brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.7.3.pdf Email correspondence between Kittila and Biden's counsel https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.8.1_1.pdf Ted Kittila's (Jason Smith's counsel) letter to the Court https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.8.0_1.pdf Clerk's office email to Ted Kittila (Jason Smith's counsel) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.13.0_1.pdf Salerno letter in response to show cause order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.14.0_3.pdf Affidavit of Jessica Bengels, the litigation specialist: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.14.1_4.pdf Unsealed Search Warrant Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.146.0_2.pdf 26 U.S.C. § 6531 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6531 NY Times on Hunter Biden Plea Deal Hearing https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/politics/hunter-biden-plea-deal-charges.html?smid=url-share -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
27-7-2023 • 57 minuten, 42 seconden
OA782: No, Shut Up, Republicans Do Not Get To Steal Elections Because of Hawaii in 1960
Indictment Watch(TM) continues as Liz and Andrew update you as to what's new with Bernard Kerik before debunking the false arguments being made in defense of the fake electors who plotted with Trump to try and steal the 2020 election. If you've ever heard anyone dishonestly suggest that "Hawaii in 1960" justifies generating fake electoral certificates, this is the episode for you! Notes Judge Howell Discovery Order re Kerik Motion to Compel https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.82.0_1.pdf Joint Stipulation re Kerik Discovery https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.83.0_1.pdf Chesebro-Troupis Dec. 9, 2020 memo https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-electors-memo-december/eb149df1a68cc512/full.pdf Todd Zywicki, “The Law of Presidential Transitions and the 2000 Election,” BYU L. Rev. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2031&context=lawreview Zywicki 2023 declaration https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Todd-Zywicki-Declaration-07.11.2023.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
25-7-2023 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 6 seconden
OA781: Fulton County DA Fani Willis Rosins Up Her Bow; Maybe This Time It Really Is RICO?
As Indictment Watch(TM) continues, Liz and Andrew turn their eyes to Fulton County, Georgia. Will DA Fani Willis beat Jack Smith in the race to indict Donald Trump for a third set of crimes? Will Trump's new lawyer, John Lauro, be less of a dipshit? (No.) And what about the fake cosplay electors who helped Trump try to steal Georgia? What's going to happen to them? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz explains that yes, sometimes it is RICO, and gives us a very special Lizdive into the Georgia standardized test scandal of 2009. Trust us, it's all a seamless web! Notes Lauro on Fox News https://www.foxnews.com/video/6331632263112 3 U.S.C. § 5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5 3 U.S.C. § 15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 SUPREME COURT Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23875842/s23o1134_-_original_petition-copy.pdf SUPERIOR COURT Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2046/2023CV382670 Trump Amendment to Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2051/AMENDED-COMPLAINT Judge Glanville order https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23883767/2023cv382670-order-of-recusal.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
24-7-2023 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 50 seconden
OA780: SCOTUS Blocked Biden From Cancelling Student Loans Because F--- You Is Why
Liz and Andrew provide a brief update as we continue to wait with bated breath on Trump indictments in DC (for the January 6th insurrection) and possibly in Fulton County, Georgia (for trying to falsify Georgia's election results). In the main segment, Liz and Andrew break down the Supreme Court's recent decision in Biden v. Nebraska on the so-called "major questions" doctrine as to why we can't have nice things like student loan forgiveness. This is a paid post on Patreon. Notes Biden v. Nebraskahttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf Dep’t of Education v. Brown https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
21-7-2023 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 14 seconden
OA779: Trump's a Target, MI Electors are Defendants & Judge Cannon Keeps Rolling (feat. Mitchell Epner)
Liz and Andrew invite back friend of the show Mitchell Epner to discuss the breaking news today that Jack Smith's Washington, DC grand jury has issued a "target letter" informing Donald Trump that he is likely to be indicted in connection with the January 6 investigation. Find out exactly what all that means & much, much more! This episode is an unpaid post on Patreon & was released a day early for all Patrons! NOTESMichigan AG Dana Nessel's press release https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2023/07/18/michigan-attorney-general-dana-nessel-charges-16-false-electors -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
20-7-2023 • 50 minuten, 10 seconden
OA778: Geese, Ganders & Affirmative Action: Are We Overreacting to SFFA v. Harvard? (Feat. Guha Krishnamurthi)
Liz and Andrew welcome Prof. Guha Krishnamurthi to the show to discuss his forthcoming law review article about the future of affirmative action in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in SFFA v. Harvard. Notes SFFA v. Harvard https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
18-7-2023 • 48 minuten, 5 seconden
OA777: Who is Gal Luft? (Or, How I Learned Everything Republicans Say About Hunter Biden is Nonsense)
Liz and Andrew break down Trump's latest doomed efforts to try and suppress the Special Purpose Grand Jury Report in Fulton County, Georgia (because he's probably going to be indicted in the next few weeks). Then, the two tackle the supposed "whistleblower" who can link Hunter Biden to Joe Biden to piles of cocaine to China to... something. Except that's all nonsense and the whistleblower has been indicted for the stuff they accuse Biden of doing. Neat! This is an unpaid post on Patreon. Notes SUPREME COURT Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23875842/s23o1134_-_original_petition-copy.pdf SUPERIOR COURT Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2046/2023CV382670 Fulton County docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc Trump motion to quash https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23718113-ex-parte-fulton-county-grand-jury-03-20-2023-102331-37306996-f8b43da6-144b-4544-ab53-4095c1c5f36d Order on briefing https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1941/SPGJ-ORDER-ON-ADDITIONAL-BRIEFING Trump Motion for Reconsideration https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1953/EX-PARTE-FILING-5-24-23A In re Floyd County Grand Jury Presentments for May Term 1996 https://casetext.com/case/in-re-floyd-county-etc Anna Bower Lawfare explainer on SPGJs https://www.lawfareblog.com/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-georgia-special-purpose-grand-juries-were-afraid-ask Woolsey article https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/exclusive-fallout-1-billion-biofuel-scam-could-decimate-polygamist-sect/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
17-7-2023 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 29 seconden
OA776: Ray Epps to Fox News: I'm an Insurrectionist, Not a Fed!
Liz and Andrew give a few updates on Trump's scheduling and the E. Jean Carroll litigation before diving into Ray Epps's defamation lawsuit against Fox News. Notes OA 704 https://openargs.com/oa704-democrats-play-offense-on-january-6/ Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/united-states-v-trump/ DOJ opp Trump motion for continuance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.76.0.pdf Epps v. Fox News lawsuit https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.83032/gov.uscourts.ded.83032.1.1_1.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
14-7-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 9 seconden
OA775: Is This Overlooked Filing the Rosetta Stone for Trump's Defense Strategy??
Liz and Andrew take a deep look at the U.S. v. Trump docket and explain how some minor-seeming procedural filings may tell us more than you'd think about how Donald Trump intends to mount a defense for crimes that he's definitely guilty of. You won't want to miss this one! Notes Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/united-states-v-trump/ Trump opp Motion for Continuance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.66.0.pdf Trump Speedy Trial Act report https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.72.0.pdf DOJ Denney case file https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/denney-lucas United States v. Hatfield, 466 F. App’x 775, 777 (11th Cir. 2012) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23870839-us-v-hatfield In re Grand Jury Investigation (Mueller Challenge) https://casetext.com/case/in-re-investigation-5442 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
Liz and Andrew break down the developments in the Trump documents case, including a deep dive into the relationship between Trump's co-defendant Walt Nauta and Nauta's lead counsel -- who's being paid by Trump's PAC. In the (LONG!) Patreon bonus, Liz recaps Alina Habba's greatest hits before bidding her a fond farewell. Notes OA 771 https://openargs.com/oa771-trump-judge-burns-down-first-amendment-to-save-free-speech/ OA 772 https://openargs.com/oa772-classified-documents-in-court-beyond-the-feing-socks-case-feat-kel-mcclanahan/ CIPA https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-18/appendix-18/ Missouri v. Biden motion to stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.301.0.pdf Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14885642386066449353 US v. Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/united-states-v-trump/ Mar-a-lago less-redacted affidavit https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23867738/trump-search-affidavit-highlghted-2023-07-05-192253.pdf Trump/Nauta indictment SDFL https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf Cassidy Hutchinson Jan. 6th testimony https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23506946/cassidy-hutchinson-jan-6-committee-transcript.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
11-7-2023 • 58 minuten, 50 seconden
OA773: Sixth Circuit Swings at Trans Kids, Bashes Scotus
Liz and Andrew break down two stories in the news. First, Republicans are taking aim at Target for its Pride line of products for the dumbest reasons. Second, the Sixth Circuit's has entered a stay of a district court order, effectively allowing Tennessee SB 1 -- prohibiting gender-affirming care -- to go into effect. Notes L.W. v. Skrmetti https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0146p-06.pdf Miller v. California (1973) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=287180442152313659 Indiana AG Rokita letter to Target https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/INAG/2023/07/06/file_attachments/2546257/Target%20Letter%20Final.pdf Erin in the Morning https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/republican-ags-declare-lgbtq-merchandise?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
10-7-2023 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 48 seconden
OA772: Classified Documents in Court – Beyond the F@€£ING ‘Socks’ Case (feat. Kel McClanahan)
While Donald Trump rants incoherently about "vital caselaw, of which there is much," Liz and Andrew welcome back actual national security law expert and friend of the show Kel McClanahan to discuss what will actually happen under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) in the Trump documents trial. Notes Trump Less Redacted Search Warrant https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23867738/trump-search-affidavit-highlghted-2023-07-05-192253.pdf DOJ Synopsis of Classified Information Procedures Act https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2054-synopsis-classified-information-procedures-act-cipa -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
7-7-2023 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 2 seconden
OA771: Trump Judge Burns Down First Amendment to Save "Free Speech"
Liz and Andrew break down the absolutely bonkers ruling by Judge Terry Doughty enjoining the Biden Administration from talking to social media. Yes, it's even worse than you think! Notes Missouri v. Biden docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/ Doughty opinion in Louisiana v. Becerra (COVID vaccine mandate injunction) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.185837/gov.uscourts.lawd.185837.28.0_1.pdf OA 551 https://openargs.com/oa551-trump-may-out-of-office-but-his-federal-judges-are-not/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
6-7-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 28 seconden
OA770: Supreme Court Declares Racism Over, Will Not Be Taking Questions
Liz and Andrew break down the Supreme Court's gutting of what little remained of affirmative action in the just-released decision of SFFA v. Harvard. Notes SFFA v. Harvard https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf SFFA complaint http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Harvard-lawsuit-11-17-14.pdf OA 93 https://openargs.com/oa93-affirmative-action-best-legal-brief-ever-written/ OA 219 - you may be surprised just how minor affirmative action was https://openargs.com/oa219-harvard-and-affirmative-action/ Henry Etkowitz et al, “The Paradox of Critical Mass for Women in Science” https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/ftp/paradox.pdf African American wealth https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/19/why-racial-wealth-gap-persists-more-than-years-after-emancipation/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
3-7-2023 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 58 seconden
OA769: Rudy Leaks, Trump Freaks, and ... Jack Smith Just Keeps Showing Up and Building His Case
Liz and Andrew catch you up on all the news breaking surrounding the Trump indictments, including potential new charges, new cooperating witnesses, and much, much more. Notes Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/ Indictment https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4825377966245261401 NARA statement https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001#June-9-2023-statement Giuliani Jan 6 depo https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23559233/transcript-of-rudy-giulianis-interview-with-house-january-6-committee.pdf Independent article re superseding indictments https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-giuliani-more-charges-b2366597.html Exclusive: CNN obtains the tape of Trump’s 2021 conversation about classified documents https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio Trump weighs in on recording of him showing off 'secret' government info: 'It's bravado' https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-weighs-recording-showing-off-secret-government-info/story?id=100420427 Inner City Press reporting on Motion to Remand https://www.innercitypress.com/sdny107fhellersteintrumpbraggicp062723.html Top Trump campaign aide identified as key individual in classified docs indictment https://abcnews.go.com/US/top-trump-campaign-aide-identified-key-individual-classified/story?id=100452600 Trump 2024 aide who allegedly saw classified map works for China lobbying firm https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/trump-aide-who-allegedly-saw-classified-map-works-for-lobbying-firm-that-serves-china/ Exclusive: Rudy Giuliani interviewed in special counsel’s 2020 election interference probe https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/27/politics/rudy-giuliani-special-counsel-meeting/index.html Giuliani Sat for Voluntary Interview in Jan. 6 Investigation https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/us/politics/giuliani-jan-6-investigation.html Investigation of Trump Documents Case Continues After Former President’s Indictment https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/trump-documents-indictment-subpoenas.html The Attention Was All on Mar-a-Lago. Some of the Action Was at Bedminster. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/politics/trump-investigation-bedminster.html Bloomberg FOIA https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-29/doj-odni-have-no-record-of-trump-standing-order-to-declassify -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
30-6-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 23 seconden
OA768: Moore v. Harper and the Permanent Republican Minority
Today, Andrew and Liz take a deep dive into the Supreme Court's recent decision in Moore v. Harper rejecting the independent state legislature theory & why we still need to be on guard against John Roberts and the Supreme Court. Notes Moore v. Harper https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf OA 618 https://openargs.com/oa618-the-case-that-could-allow-republicans-to-steal-2024/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
29-6-2023 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 20 seconden
OA767: Porn - Won't Someone PLEASE Think of the Children?? (feat. Ari Cohn)
Today, Liz and Andrew welcome back First Amendment expert Ari Cohn to break down Texas HB 1181, an anti-porn bill that will require websites to verify your age and also append a bunch of lies in the form of made-up "disclaimers" about the supposed harms of pornography. We also break down the latest in the Trump documents case and make fun of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for more than just the porn thing. You won't want to miss it! NotesTexas HB 1181 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB1181 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
27-6-2023 • 54 minuten, 40 seconden
OA766: ChatGPT Lawyers Skate As Judge Cannon Prepares to Ratf*ck Trump Prosecution
26-6-2023 • 56 minuten, 21 seconden
OA765: Kathy Griffin SLAPPs Back At Being Sued in Faraway Places (feat. Ari Cohn)
Liz and Andrew welcome First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn to help break down an important lawsuit involving Kathy Griffin, personal jurisdiction, and frivolous SLAPP lawsuits. NOTESJohnson v. Griffin Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63264613/johnson-v-griffin/ Johnson v. Griffin Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.90242/gov.uscourts.tnmd.90242.1.0.pdf Trial Court Opinion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.90242/gov.uscourts.tnmd.90242.32.0.pdf TechFreedom writeup https://techfreedom.org/protect-internet-users-from-slapps-techfreedom-tells-sixth-circuit/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
23-6-2023 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 34 seconden
OA 764: ProPublica Reveals Sam Alito Is Exactly As Corrupt As You Thought He Was
Liz and Andrew break down the bombshell ProPublica article about Samuel Alito's corruption, and along the way remind you of the right wing's complicity in the false narrative that abortion violence is a "both sides" issue. It isn't. Notes OA 749 https://openargs.com/oa749-clarence-thomas-grifts-kari-lake-sinks-stewart-rhodes-comes-to-the-end/ OA 739 https://openargs.com/oa739-5-million-says-mike-lindell-is-full-of-stuffing/ ProPublica, “Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court,” https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court ProPublica on Thomas/Crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow DOJ, Recent Cases on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers DOJ, Anti-Abortion Violence Movement Increases (1996) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/anti-abortion-violence-movement-increases Ruth Sent Us www.ruthsent.us Jane’s Revenge Superseding Indictment https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2023/03/29/unsealed_superseding_indictment_0.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 13104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
22-6-2023 • 48 minuten, 56 seconden
OA763: Did Merrick Garland Treat Donald Trump With Kid Gloves? Does It Matter?
Liz and Andrew lead off with the blockbuster Washington Post story that the FBI and DOJ had to be browbeaten into investigating Donald Trump. After that, the duo tackle a bunch of stories surrounding the Trump indictments, including developments in both the Florida and New York cases, Rudy Giuliani being a jerk, and much, much more. In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz duo answer one of your burning questions: how exactly is the Trump documents case going to go to trial if only a handful of people can see the documents he's charged with having willfully retained? The answer is the Classified Information Procedures Act, and we start to break it down for you! Notes FBI resisted opening probe into Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for more than a year https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/ Freeman/Moss Motion to Compel https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.65.0.pdf Giuliani May 30 Motion for Reconsideration https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.61.0.pdf Freeman/Moss Opposition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.64.0.pdf Trump Indictment https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf CIPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 96-456 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
20-6-2023 • 49 minuten, 57 seconden
OA762: Trump's Lawyers So Confident of Their Case They All Quit At Once
Liz and Andrew first discuss developments in the other Trump indictment -- remember that one in New York? After that, they break down the breakdown in Trump's legal team. Happy Father's Day! Notes NY Penal Law 175.10 https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-3-specific-offenses/title-k-offenses-involving-fraud/article-175-offenses-involving-false-written-statements/section-17510-falsifying-business-records-in-the-first-degree GA Code 21-2-562 https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-georgia/title-21-elections/chapter-2-elections-and-primaries-generally/article-15-miscellaneous-offenses/section-21-2-562-fraudulent-entries-unlawful-alteration-or-destruction-of-entries-unlawful-removal-of-documents-neglect-or-refusal-to-deliver-documents Bragg Motion to Remand https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.19.0.pdf Trump Lawyers Consider Revenge for Former Colleague https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-lawyers-consider-revenge-for-former-colleague Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Tillman on Plagiarism in the Trump Litigation Briefs,’ New Reform Club (June 16, 2023, 13:55 PM) https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/06/tillman-on-plagiarism-in-trump.html -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
19-6-2023 • 58 minuten, 42 seconden
OA761: Judge Cannon Prepares to Do Trump a Solid, As Republicans Aim to Kneecap Biden
It's a grab bag of stories, mostly Trump-adjacent. After some great news on judges, Liz explains that the House GOP is so desperate to smear President Biden they've made like Rudy Giuliani and leaked. Stick around for the end, when the duo breaks down exactly what can (and can't!) be done about Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss a recent Judge Cannon order in some detail. Notes Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S.Ct. 2551 (2019) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2540889926931166997 Ho Letter https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzymywgvw/ho-letter-lawfirms.pdf Trump search warrant docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/ Trump Mar-a-Lago search warrant https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Reinhart-Mar-a-Lago-less-redacted-affidavit.pdf Sample Warrant https://evawintl.org/wp-content/uploads/18-Appendix-B-Search-Warrants.pdf Comer Subpoena Wray https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Grassley-Comer-letter.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 455 - Recusal Statute https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
16-6-2023 • 57 minuten, 5 seconden
OA760: Trump's Arraignment - Judge Aileen Cannon Returns to the Scene of the Crime (feat. Mitchell Epner)
Liz and Andrew welcome back Mitchell Epner to the show to break down today's indictment of Donald Trump & Walt Nauta... and also figure out just how much mischief Judge Aileen Cannon can cause. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
15-6-2023 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 47 seconden
OA759: The "Socks" Case - Don't Take Legal Advice From Judicial Watch! (feat. Kel McClanahan)
Republicans are saying that the "Clinton sock drawer case" - Judicial Watch v. NARA - means that Trump didn't violate the Espionage Act and can just declare anything he wants to be a "personal" record. That's nonsense, of course. Notes Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration, 845 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.D.C.2012) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15818036517066124081 Donate to National Security Counselors! https://donate.democracyengine.com/NationalSecurityCounselors/contribute OR https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=QQY2ZQMWC6PX6 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
13-6-2023 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 58 seconden
OA758: Re-Indicted And It Feels So Good!
THIS IS IT! Liz and Andrew break down the federal indictment of Donald Trump in connection with his retention of Presidential documents. This is your guide to everything so you'll stay one step ahead of the media coverage. Notes Jack Smith appointment order https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1552896/download Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/ Trump Indictment https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
11-6-2023 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 2 seconden
OA757: Did Oklahoma Just Hand Public Education Over To St. Isidore?
Yes, this was recorded before the Trump indictment! Liz and Andrew take a deep dive into the last stand of the separation of church and state as Oklahoma formally lets the Catholic Church run a public school. Notes OA 256 https://openargs.com/oa256-the-bladensburg-cross/ OA 295 https://openargs.com/oa295-a-bladensburg-post-mortem-with-monica-miller/ OA 608 https://openargs.com/oa608-forget-church-state-separation-scotus-mandates-christian-favoritism/ Lemon v. Kurtzman https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6993086659963510613 American Legion v. American Humanist Associationhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf CDS cert petition https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxomkmnpx/frankel-peltiervcharterday--certpetition.pdf Biden opp cert https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-238/267405/20230522154832551_Charter%20Day%20School%20CVSG%20No.%2022-238.pdf Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, § 70-3-136 https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-70/section-70-3-136/ Henry Abbot testimony, NC Ratifying Convention https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/henry_abbot7.30.pdf Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board meeting minutes https://svcsb.ok.gov/board-meetings -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
9-6-2023 • 59 minuten, 25 seconden
OA756: Twitter's Lawyers Dunk on Musk in Trump LOLsuit
Liz and Andrew break down the latest filing by Twitter proving that the Twitter Files don't say anything like what Elon Musk said they did. So, to summarize: Twitter still isn't in cahoots with the Deep State to censor conservatives. Then, it's time for some great news out of Florida as a federal judge blocks Florida's obscene law prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for three trans kids. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew further debunk that Twitter is being paid $$$BILLIONS$$$ to... censor conservatives. Notes Trump Motion for Indicative Ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.191.0.pdf Trump Motion for Relief From Judgment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.191.1.pdf Twitter reply to Indicative Motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf O’Handley v. Weber https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/10/22-15071.pdf FL PI Injunction https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963.90.0_1.pdf Twitter Admits in Court Filing: Elon Musk Is Simply Wrong About Government Interference At Twitter www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
8-6-2023 • 54 minuten, 36 seconden
OA755: Alan Dershowitz Would Like New Ethics Rules To Benefit... Alan Dershowitz
Liz and Andrew update you with breaking news about the ChatGPT case, Mata v. Avianca, as well as developments in the Trump documents and George Santos cases. But all of that is mere appetizer for the main course: Alan Dershowitz's ongoing tilting at windmills to convince a court to rewrite the attorney sanctions rules so that Alan Dershowitz can continue to represent monsters and idiots without consequences. Learn how Dersh is continuing to peddle the lie that he was merely "of counsel" to Kari Lake and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for the fact that her complaint was a grab-bag of lies wrapped in more lies. Notes Lake v. Fontes docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63260463/lake-v-fontes -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
6-6-2023 • 54 minuten, 46 seconden
OA 754: Trump Drags Bragg To Federal Court; Bragg Drags Back (feat. David Lurie)
Liz and Andrew welcome NY practitioner David Lurie to the show to discuss Trump's efforts to remove his New York indictment to federal court. Notes NY Crim Law 175.10 https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-3-specific-offenses/title-k-offenses-involving-fraud/article-175-offenses-involving-false-written-statements/section-17510-falsifying-business-records-in-the-first-degree 28 USC 1442 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442 In re Commonwealth, 790 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5539437264593415986 Trump notice of removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.1.0_2.pdf Bragg Motion to Remand https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.19.0.pdf Morgan Lewis White Paper https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.1.1_1.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
5-6-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 28 seconden
OA753: Gonzalez v. Google: The Case That (Didn't) Break The Internet (feat. Corbin Barthold)
Liz and Andrew break down the recent Supreme Court decisions in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh with help from Corbin Barthold. Notes Section 230 - 47 U.S.C. § 230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 OA 698 https://openargs.com/oa698-will-clarence-thomas-break-the-internet-probably-not/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
2-6-2023 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 33 seconden
OA752: Ticket, Boarding Pass... Weight Check??
After discussing some breaking news, Liz and Andrew break down that viral "hey, are the airlines forcing passengers to step on scales before boarding the plane" story. Then, the duo update you on the impeachment of Texas AG Ken Paxton. In the Patreon bonus, Andrew gets angry as we talk about the latest maneuvering by the guy who sold out his country for Donald Trump, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Notes Mata v. Avianca - Motion for Extension of Time Granted in Part, Denied in Part https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.38.0.pdf New Zealand Civil Aviation Act of 1990 https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0098/latest/DLM214687.html United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1428365285620704265 State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3222116451721963278 Paxton Articles of Impeachment https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HR02377I.pdf#navpanes=0 Senate Resolution Impeachment https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SR735/2023 ProPublica article on COMPAS https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
1-6-2023 • 49 minuten, 28 seconden
OA751: ChatGPT Writes Fake Opinions; Real Judge Is Not Amused
Today, Liz and Andrew tackle the case that's burning up the Internet: did a lawyer really use AI to write a legal brief? Turns out no, it's even worse! The duo also update you on the latest from Peter Navarro's (losing) efforts to protect Donald Trump, and in the Patreon bonus, we learn what the legal architect of the January 6th Insurrection, John Eastman, has been up to. It's a super-sized episode! Notes OA 748 https://openargs.com/oa748-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-debt-ceiling-but-were-afraid-to-ask/ OA 707 https://openargs.com/oa707-peter-navarro-gets-spanked-by-government-in-presidential-records-case-with-major-implications-for-trump/ Mata v. Avianca dockethttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=asc Mata v. Avianca complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.18.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca Opposition to Motion to Dismiss https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.21.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca First Show Cause Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.25.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca 4/25 LoDuca affidavit https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.29.0.pdf LoDuca affidavit, Exhibit 1, “Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd.” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.29.1.pdf Mata v. Avianca defense counsel letter 4/26 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.30.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca Second Show Cause Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.31.0_1.pdf Mata v. Avianca, LoDuca affidavit 5/25 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.32.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca, Schwartz affidavit 5/25 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.32.1_1.pdf Mata v. Avianca, Court Third Show Cause Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.33.0_1.pdf
30-5-2023 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 13 seconden
OA750: Carroll v. Trump III ??!? (feat. Mitchell Epner)
On today's show, Mitchell Epner returns to help Andrew and Liz break down two New York stories: first, the allegations surrounding Trump's media company that produces "Truth Social," and second, E. Jean Carroll's efforts to amend her pending defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump to add claims related to Trump's comments at the CNN "Town Social" in light of the prior verdict. Oh, and the "Truth Social" story involves Devin Nunes because of course it does. Notes OA 732 https://openargs.com/oa-732-court-calls-bullsht-on-devin-nunes-cowsuit/ E. Jean Carroll Motion to Amend https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.156.0_1.pdf TMTG v. WP Company https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23819045-trump-media-v-wapo-complaint Nunes v. Guardian https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23828415/nunes-v-guardian-complaint.pdf WaPo article, “Trust linked to porn-friendly bank could gain a stake in Trump’s Truth Social” https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/13/trump-truth-social-loan-questions/ Guardian Article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/15/trump-media-investigated-possible-money-laundering -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
29-5-2023 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 56 seconden
OA749: Clarence Thomas Grifts. Kari Lake Sinks. Stewart Rhodes Comes To The End
Liz and Andrew update you on a bunch of stories, including today's breaking news regarding the sentencing of Stewart Rhodes and the Texas Legislature committee referring out articles of impeachment for AG Ken Paxton. Notes OA 693 https://openargs.com/oa693-mike-pence-cant-testify-against-trump-cause-hes-a-senator-now/ OA 698 https://openargs.com/oa698-will-clarence-thomas-break-the-internet-probably-not/ OA 723 https://openargs.com/oa723-right-wing-judges-take-the-money-and-run-away-with-your-civil-rights/ OA 746 https://openargs.com/oa746-derp-off-dersh-off-2-sidney-powell-vs-kari-lake/ Investigators detail years of alleged misconduct by Texas AG Ken Paxton in stunning House committee hearing https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/24/ken-paxton-abuse-power-house-investigation-texas/ Kari Lake ruling https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CV2022-095403-926-05222023-PDF.pdf Kari Lake War Room tweet 5/23 tweet https://twitter.com/KariLakeWarRoom/status/1661095473695035392?s=20 May 8 Senate Judiciary Letter to Harlan Crow https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/May%208,%202023%20letter%20to%20Harlan%20Crow16.pdf May 22 letter from Gibson Dunn to Durbin re Harlan Crow https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23822175/crow-letter.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 13103 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13103 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
26-5-2023 • 53 minuten, 30 seconden
OA748: Everything You Wanted To Know About the Debt Ceiling (But Were Afraid to Ask)
This is it! Liz and Andrew break down the debt ceiling and what can be done about it, including the Fourteenth Amendment. You'll want to share this far and wide! In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew tackle a stupendously bad article arguing against the application of the 14th Amendment. NOTES OA 736 https://openargs.com/oa736-scotus-tees-up-rancid-herring-case-to-gut-the-administrative-state/ 31 U.S.C § 3101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3101 Congressional Research Service, Debt limit votes 1978 to present https://sp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41814.pdf Congressional Research Service, The Gephardt Rule https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL31913 HR 3877 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3877/text Perry v. U.S., 294 U.S. 330 (1935) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3388791031923623137 EO 6102 notice https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Executive_Order_6102.jpg Laurence Tribe, “A Ceiling We Can’t Wish Away,” New York Times, July 7, 2011 https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html
25-5-2023 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 32 seconden
OA747: Ready For Ron (DeSantis)? NOT SO FAST
In this (almost entirely!) Trump-free episode, Liz and Andrew break down two major steps backwards for Meatball Ron DeSantis: an own goal in his ongoing losing Woke War Against Disney, and a major setback by a group looking to aid his (doomed) 2024 Presidential bid. You won't want to miss it! In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew give an update on the ongoing efforts to hold MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell accountable for his $5 million "Prove Mike Wrong" challenge when he was, in fact, very very wrong. Notes OA 734 https://openargs.com/oa-734-disney-v-desantis-you-mess-with-the-mouse-you-get-the-ears/ OA 717 https://openargs.com/oa717-lock-him-up-4-trump-gets-indicted-desantis-gets-spanked/ OA 614 https://openargs.com/oa614-the-fec-is-corrupt-and-broken-biden-has-inexplicably-neglected-to-fix-it/ Disney MTD CFTOD complaint https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23816386/disney-mtd.pdf Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30101 11 C.F.R. § 100.72 https://www.fec.gov/regulations/100-72/2022-annual-100 Ready For Ron v. FEC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65639515/ready-for-ron-v-federal-election-commission/ Ready For Ron complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.248664/gov.uscourts.dcd.248664.1.0_1.pdf Ready For Ron rulinghttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.248664/gov.uscourts.dcd.248664.30.0.pdf Carey v. FEC, 791 F.Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2459277047400624208 (Hilariously, the Ready for Ron complaint manages to cite the wrong Carey case and also gets the year wrong.)
23-5-2023 • 47 minuten, 2 seconden
OA746: Derp Off Dersh Off 2: Sidney Powell vs. Kari Lake
It's Sanctions Day! After a quick listener question, Liz and Andrew discuss the recent attorney grievance complaint against the Krakenlawyers in Michigan and what everyone's favorite li'l election-denying weirdo, Kari Lake, has been up to. (Spoiler alert: nothing good.) Notes OA 673 https://openargs.com/oa673-dont-sanction-me-im-old-dersh/ OA 678 https://openargs.com/oa678-dershs-sanctions-defense-somehow-keeps-getting-worse/ OA 728 https://openargs.com/oa728-fox-blinks-first/ King v. Whitmer sanctions video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWiuX9CPOSA King v. Whitmer sanctions transcript https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Sanctions-hearing-transcript.pdf King v. Whitmer sanctions ruling https://casetext.com/case/king-v-whitmer-7 King v. Whitmer docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/king-v-whitmer/ Texas attorney grievance procedures https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Disciplinary_Process_Overview&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=29470#reciprocal Lake v. Hobbs state docket https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2022/cv2022-095403 Lake v. Hobbs complaint https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4151/638064516668500000 Arizona Supreme Court ruling in Lake v. Hobbs https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23720629/orderrepetitionforreview-4731530-0.pdf Lake v. Fontes https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569.3.0_1.pdf Lake v. Fontes Sanctions order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569.106.0_2.pdf Lake v. Fontes attorneys’ fees https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569.107.6.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
22-5-2023 • 46 minuten, 22 seconden
OA745: Not Even Republicans Are Buying What John Durham is Selling
Liz and Andrew break down Special Counsel John Durham's report, which resulted in zero convictions in four years and makes no new recommendations for any change to any FBI policy - but continues to peddle long-debunked conspiracy theories about how the FBI is in cahoots with Hillary Clinton. Sure, Jan. Notes Durham report https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23813392/durhamreport.pdf Durham Appointment Order https://www.justice.gov/d9/fieldable-panel-panes/basic-panes/attachments/2021/02/26/durham.order_.pdf Durham Statement On IG Report https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham New York Times, “How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
19-5-2023 • 58 minuten, 25 seconden
OA744: Georgia Fake Electors Scheme Gets Real (feat. Lawfare's Anna Bower)
Liz and Andrew welcome Lawfare's Anna Bower to the podcast to break down everything going on with the potential indictment of Donald Trump in Fulton County, Georgia, with a focus on Trump's recent motion to quash the Special Purpose Grand Jury report, DA Fani Willis's response, and more! Notes Fulton County docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc Anna Bower, Lawfare, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Georgia Special Purpose Grand Juries But Were Afraid to Ask" https://www.lawfareblog.com/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-georgia-special-purpose-grand-juries-were-afraid-ask Anna Bower's columns: https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/abower -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
18-5-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 58 seconden
OA743: Trump Hallucinates Gag Order as DOJ Blocks Testimony in Strzok Suit
Liz and Andrew update you on the latest developments in Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's criminal case against Donald Trump as well as Peter Strzok's ongoing civil suit against the DOJ. Notes OA 700 https://openargs.com/oa700-rumors-of-trumps-testimony-in-strzok-suit-may-be-greatly-exaggerated/ OA 716 https://openargs.com/oa-716-jim-jordan-is-not-alvin-braggs-daddy/ Trump Protective Order https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23807787/protective-order-5-8-23.pdf Trump notice of removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.1.0_1.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 552a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a 28 U.S.C. § 1442 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442 28 U.S.C. § 1455 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1455 In re Commonwealth, 790 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5539437264593415986 Jordan 3/20 Letter to Bragg https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-20-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-trump-investigation.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
16-5-2023 • 56 minuten, 10 seconden
OA742: Twitter Can't Violate the First Amendment, But Fox Can Definitely Defame a Gov't Official
In light of Linda Yaccarino being named CEO of Twitter, Liz and Andrew break down Trumpworld's never-ending lawsuits against social media, and yet another defamation suit against Fox News, this one by Nina Jankowicz. Happy Mother's Day! For the Patreon bonus, we discuss beer, the Superbowl, and Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because of course we do. Notes OA 551 https://openargs.com/oa551-trump-may-out-of-office-but-his-federal-judges-are-not/ Donato dismissal Trump v. Twitter https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.165.0_6.pdf Trump v. Twitter, Motion for Indicative Ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.191.0.pdf FRCP 62.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_62.1 Jankowicz federal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67365497/jankowicz-v-fox-news-network-llc/ Jankowicz complaint https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23809394-jankowicz-v-fox-complaint -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
15-5-2023 • 55 minuten, 51 seconden
OA 741: It's a Derp-Off! Trump vs. Santos vs. Dersh
Liz and Andrew break down the latest developments in Fulton County, GA; some truly terrible takes on the E. Jean Carroll verdict by Alan Dershowitz; and the indictment of Congressman Astronaut Rabbi George Santos. Be there, will be wild! NotesOA 738 https://openargs.com/oa-738-trump-flops-proud-boys-drop/ Surveillance footage of Cathy Latham https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/09/20/coffee-county-georgia-cathy-latham/ SPGJ report sections made public http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1706/EX-PARTE-ORDER-OF-THE-JUDGE-2-16-2023-Report Willis Modification of Motion to Disqualify Debrow http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1918/SPGJ--STATES-MODIFICATION-OF-MOTION-TO-DISQUALIFY-5-10-23 Shafer letter Fulton County https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23800972/shafer-final-march-26-letter-to-da-willis-w-exhibits.pdf FEC Complaint - Santos https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/Campaign%20Legal%20Center%20-%20Santos%20Complaint%20%28Final%29.pdf Santos indictment https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-05/santos.indictment.pdf 18 U.S.C. § 1343 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343 Federal Sentencing Guidelines https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2021/GLMFull.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
12-5-2023 • 1 uur, 38 seconden
OA740: BREAKING - E. Jean Carroll, $5 Million; Trump, ZERO (feat. Mitchell Epner)
Liz and Andrew bring on former sex crimes prosecutor and New York attorney Mitchell Epner for a discussion of the breaking civil verdict awarding E. Jean Carroll $5 million for Trump's assault and subsequent defamation. We go WAY beyond the regular media coverage; you won't want to miss this episode! This episode is a paid post on Patreon and was released early to supporters. Notes Carroll verdict form (blank) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23808239/carrollvtrumpverdictform.pdf Screenshots of actual verdict form (Pagliery tweet) https://twitter.com/Jose_Pagliery/status/1656020932031389697?s=20 Trump depo testimony - full video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkU49iYkw2A -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
10-5-2023 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 44 seconden
OA739: $5 Million Says Mike Lindell Is Full Of Stuffing
Today, Liz and Andrew interview Cary Joshi and Brian Glasser of Bailey Glasser, who successfully won a $5 million arbitration award against Mike Lindell for claims of election fraud data. Notes Prove Mike Wrong Challenge Official Rules https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Prove-Mike-Wrong-Challenge-Official-Rules.pdf Arbitration Award https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/a68b42f4-d5dc-4ff9-b34e-84d52fa3fc32.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_11 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
9-5-2023 • 58 minuten, 59 seconden
OA 738: Trump Flops, Proud Boys Drop
Today, Liz and Andrew check in on three stories we've previously covered: the conclusion of the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against Donald Trump; the recent convictions of the Proud Boys in connection with the January 6 insurrection; and what's going on in Fulton County, Georgia. It's a whirlwind and you don't want to miss it! In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz discuss what really happened in Hawaii in 1960 and why it doesn't help the insurrectionists no matter what John Eastman tells you. NOTES OA 728 https://openargs.com/oa728-fox-blinks-first/ Wikipedia on Georgia post-election lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Georgia Fake electors transmittal https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/ga-full.pdf Fulton County docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc July 2022 Motion to Quash subpoenas http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1222/MOTION-TO-QUASH-AND-DISQUALIFY---Copy Oct. 2022 1st Motion to Disqualify Debrow and Pierson http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1430/SPGJ-MOTION-TO-DISQUALIFY-ATTORNEYS-HOLLY-A-PIERSON---KIMBERLY-BOUROUGHS-DEBROW-10-3-22 April 18, 2023 2nd Motion to Disqualify Debrow http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1905/SPGJ-MOTION-TO-DISQUALIFY-ATTY-KIMBERLY-BOURROUGHS-DEBROW Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Debrow http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1917/EX-PARTE-FILING-5-5-23 Barr Jan 6th testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000083860/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000083860.pdf 3 USC 12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/12 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
8-5-2023 • 59 minuten, 46 seconden
OA 737: Bad Judges, Bad Judges, Whatcha Gonna Do?
Today, Liz and Andrew discuss the latest ethical lapse from Clarence Thomas, as well as the horrible activism of the next Republican Supreme Court nominee, Stu Duncan. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew break down the latest sanctions issued against Donald Trump in New York. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
5-5-2023 • 57 minuten, 9 seconden
OA736: SCOTUS Tees Up Rancid Herring Case to Gut the Administrative State
4-5-2023 • 43 minuten, 22 seconden
OA735: Will a Plea Bargain Keep Trump Out of the White House?
2-5-2023 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 33 seconden
OA 734: Disney v. DeSantis: YOU MESS WITH THE MOUSE, YOU GET THE EARS
Liz and Andrew break down the just-filed lawsuit by Disney with respect to Ron DeSantis and his Republican buddies' shenanigans in Florida. Who will prevail? Listen and find out! This photograph of a Famous Mouse was taken 21 April 2009 by Marcus Quigmire of Florida and originally posted to Flickr. It was downloaded by Opening Arguments Media, LLC on April 27, 2023 from Wikimedia Commons and is used without modification under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) license, which is linked below. No endorsement by any other party than Opening Arguments Media, LLC is implied. CC License of Famous Mouse https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Original source for Famous Mouse (Wikimedia Commons) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Famous_mouse_%283463764209%29.jpg Notes OA 717 https://openargs.com/oa717-lock-him-up-4-trump-gets-indicted-desantis-gets-spanked/ Disney v. DeSantis complaint https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23789600/file-stamped-disney-complaint1.pdf Disney-RCID Feb. 8, 2023 Contract https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23734248/disney-board-covenant.pdf CFTOD 4/26 meeting minutes https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CFTOD-4-26-23-BOS-Packet-FINAL-revised-4-24-23.pdf RCID Comprehensive Plan Approval https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2032-RCID-Comprehensive-Plan.pdf Florida HB 9B https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0009Ber.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0009B&Session=2023B Florida SB 1604 https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1604/BillText/e1/PDF -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
1-5-2023 • 56 minuten, 20 seconden
OA 733: Trump Phones A Friend As Document Indictment Looms (feat. Kel McClanahan)
Liz and Andrew take a look at a letter sent by Donald Trump's lawyers to House Republicans and bring back expert National Security Lawyer Kel McClanahan to help answer all their questions about Trump's dubious assertions about how the National Archives should have handled the Mar-a-Lago documents. Notes In re Sealed Case (Pence-Boasberg) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67164305/in-re-sealed-case/?order_by=desc Parlatore Trump letter https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23789802/read-trump-lawyers-letter-to-congress-reveal-foreign-leader-briefings-may-be-among-classified-documents-taken-from-white-house.pdf Less-redacted search warrant https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Reinhart-Mar-a-Lago-less-redacted-affidavit.pdf NARA Oct. 11, 2022 statement https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001#october-11-2022 Debra Steidel Wall 1/17/23 letter to Jim Comer https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23575130/nara-response-to-rep-james-comer.pdf 18 USC §793(e) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
28-4-2023 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 9 seconden
OA 732: Court Calls Bullsh*t on Devin Nunes Cowsuit
Liz and Andrew give a brief update on how it's going for Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit. (Spoiler alert: not good! Like, contempt of court not good.) Then, the duo break down the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ryan Lizza in the LOLsuit filed by former Representative and guy-who-sued-an-Internet-cow-and-lost, Devin Nunes. It's informative AND hilarious! In the Patreon bonus, we tell you how the omniversal fear of Antonin Scalia created modern supplemental jurisdiction law! Notes Nunes v. Lizza Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.iand.55763/gov.uscourts.iand.55763.149.0.pdf Eighth Circuit holding https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/09/202710P.pdf Devin Nunes’s Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
27-4-2023 • 52 minuten, 51 seconden
OA 731: And the Loser of the Week Award Goes to TUCKER CARLSON, With Runner-Up Mike Lindell
Liz and Andrew break down the other Fox News lawsuit (by Abby Grossberg) that probably contributed to Tucker Carlson's firing, and then a hilarious arbitration loss for The Pillow Guy. You won't want to miss it! Notes OA 715 https://openargs.com/oa715-fox-blunders-into-dumpster-fire-lawsuit-no-a-different-one/ New Grossberg 2nd Amended Complaint https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23774175/grossberg-de-court-second-amended-complaint-and-exhibit-a-1.pdf Grossberg federal complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.1.0.pdf Grossberg DE docket https://courtconnect.courts.delaware.gov/cc/cconnect/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=N23C-03-180&begin_date=&end_date= Arbitration award against Mike Lindell https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/a68b42f4-d5dc-4ff9-b34e-84d52fa3fc32.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_11 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
25-4-2023 • 57 minuten, 58 seconden
OA730: You Wouldn't Like Sam Alito When He's Angry (Or Ever)
Liz and Andrew update a bunch of stories they've been tracking before breaking down exactly what the Supreme Court's Friday night stay in the mifepristone case means... and exactly how unhinged Samuel Alito's dissent was. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew do a deep dive on the shady behaviors of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Notes OA 712 https://openargs.com/oa712-lock-him-up-3-rise-of-the-machines/ OA 714 https://openargs.com/oa714-gonna-be-hard-for-steve-bannons-sugar-daddy-to-write-those-checks-from-prison/ OA 717 https://openargs.com/oa717-lock-him-up-4-trump-gets-indicted-desantis-gets-spanked/ OA 729 https://openargs.com/oa729-bragg-loses-a-round-trump-loses-five/ SB 1604 Amendment https://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=603230.DOCX&DocumentType=Amendments&BillNumber=1604&Session=2023 DOJ Letter Motion re: protective order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.49.0.pdf The Jurisprudence of the Body https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxwJ7kjwYA7FeXNoZUZaTjlmWms/view?resourcekey=0-SCB5U127telKXA00Hr9TEQ SCOTUS order in Danco v. Alliance https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a901_3d9g.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
24-4-2023 • 48 minuten, 5 seconden
OA729: Bragg Loses A Round, Trump Loses Five
Today, Liz and Andrew disagree over a recent ruling from Judge Vyskocil denying Alvin Bragg's motion for injunctive relief, and then break down recent developments in the E. Jean Carroll litigation. Notes OA 724 https://openargs.com/oa724-alvin-bragg-no-longer-chickensht/ Judge Vicodin’s order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.44.0.pdf Bragg motion for stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.46.0_1.pdf Bragg Reply https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.41.1.pdf Second Circuit ruling on stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60324/gov.uscourts.ca2.60324.7.0.pdf Letter Memo rebuking Tacopina re jury selection https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.117.0.pdf Order re attendance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.104.0.pdf Carroll response re attendance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.116.0.pdf Trump request for jury instruction re attendance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.118.0.pdf Carroll response to Trump requested jury instruction re attendance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.119.0.pdf Judge Kaplan response re Trump jury attendance instruction https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.125.0_1.pdf Trump response to denial of jury instruction https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.127.0.pdf McGrain v. Dougherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8194274097278523278 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
21-4-2023 • 55 minuten, 17 seconden
OA728: FOX Blinks First!
Liz and Andrew update you on three stories stealing all the headlines: the Dominion-Fox settlement, what's going on at the Supreme Court with mifepristone, and a tale of two.. Fulton Counties?? For the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew pop open the hood and check out two demonstrable lies in Alliance's briefing before the Supreme Court. Notes Alliance docket - SCOTUS orders https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22a902.html Alliance opposition https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A902/263824/20230418120347639_2023.04.18%20Opposition%20to%20Emergency%20Application.pdf FDA Reply in Alliance https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A902/263892/20230418232614640_FINAL%20Alliance%20SCOTUS%20Reply.pdf PA Supreme Court order - Fulton County https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230419/134653-appealdismissed.pdf Fulton County GA docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc Fulton County GA Motion to Disqualify https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23782506/spgj-motion-to-disqualify-atty-kimberly-bourroughs-debrow.pdf Fox Corp financials https://investor.foxcorporation.com/static-files/3b2bdb74-8ebe-4173-9f0f-ac18831ff094 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
20-4-2023 • 53 minuten, 7 seconden
OA727: No, Dominion Did Not Just 'Walk Away' From Half a Billion Dollars
Today, Liz and Andrew go out on a limb and discuss reasons why the Dominion v. Fox defamation trial scheduled to start today was postponed for a day. Along the way, they break down Fox's latest motion for "clarification" and what it means for the network that brought us Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Donald Trump's insane claims of a stolen election that they knew to be false. Notes OA 243 https://openargs.com/oa243-build-that-wall-2/ OA 718 https://openargs.com/oa718-why-fox-news-has-a-nuanced-approach-to-falsity/ Fox Motion for Clarification https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23780752/fox-motion-for-clarification.pdf Delaware Court of Chancery Rules https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=160908 Sun Printing & Publ’g Ass’n v. Schenck, 98 F. 925 (2d Cir. 1900) https://cite.case.law/f/98/925/ Marinaccio v. Town of Clarence, 20 N.Y.3d 506, 986 N.E.2d 903 (2013) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17916567453327988927 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
18-4-2023 • 51 minuten, 49 seconden
OA726: Will SCOTUS Abort the Fifth Circuit's Insane Mifepristone Ruling??
Liz and Andrew work through the best arguments being raised by the DOJ in its emergency Supreme Court petition to stay the 5th Circuit's mifepristone ruling. Will any of them work? Listen and find out! The duo also break down Trump's latest LOLsuit against Michael Cohen. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss the intricacies of the most recent SCOTUS standing decision, TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez. You won't want to miss it! Notes Trump v. Cohen Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67175870/trump-v-cohen/ Trump v. Cohen Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.645291/gov.uscourts.flsd.645291.1.0_2.pdf Alito stay order https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22a901.html DOJ SCT admin stay application https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A902/263491/20230414103258942_Alliance%20for%20Hippocratic%20Med%20%20application.pdf Danco Stay application https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A901/263483/20230414093601611_SCOTUS%20Stay%20Application%204-14-23%20Final.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
17-4-2023 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 5 seconden
OA725: The Future of Mifepristone
In this SUPER-SIZED episode, Liz and Andrew look beneath the headlines and correct misimpressions regarding both E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump and the 5th Circuit's mifepristone ruling. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss an important certified question to the DC Court of Appeals. If you’re not following us on Twitter, you’ve missed out on a lot of updates. We’re @openargs and Liz is @5dollarfeminist. Notes Habba 4/13 Letter Motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.109.0.pdf Kaplan 4/13/2023 Letter Response https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.109.0.pdf CNN article on E. Jean Carroll https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/politics/trump-carroll-case-delay-request/index.html Court ruling in E. Jean Carroll https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.110.0.pdf CWA 2002 Petition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.1.14.pdf Complaint Exhibit 30 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.1.31.pdf Washington v. FDA ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.91.0.pdf Alliance v. FDA 5th Cir. ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.183.2_1.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
14-4-2023 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 56 seconden
OA724: Alvin Bragg, No Longer Chickensh*t?
After updating you on a bunch of cases, Liz and Andrew break down Alvin Bragg's just-filed lawsuit against Jim Jordan. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew break down a recent D.C. Circuit ruling with huge implications for hundreds of 1/6 defendants and possibly Trump! Notes OA 705 https://openargs.com/oa705-can-dominion-really-take-down-fox-news/ OA 716 https://openargs.com/oa-716-jim-jordan-is-not-alvin-braggs-daddy/ OA 718 https://openargs.com/oa718-why-fox-news-has-a-nuanced-approach-to-falsity/ Bragg v. Jordan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.1.0.pdf NFIB v. Sebelius https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12815172896965834886 Younger v. Harris https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2453423928277325927 Pomerantz Resignation Letter https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/mark-pomerantz-resignation-letter.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article Pomerantz Subpoena Letter https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-04-06-jdj-to-pomerantz-subpoena_0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
13-4-2023 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 26 seconden
OA723: Right-Wing Judges Take the Money and Run… Away With Your Civil Rights
Liz and Andrew tackle three stories: an update on the dueling mifepristone rulings in Texas and Washington, Clarence Thomas's latest corrupt activities, and (for patrons) an update on Steve Bannon's sugar daddy. Notes OA 594: Impeach Clarence Thomas https://openargs.com/oa594-impeach-clarence-thomas/ OA 714 on Kwok https://openargs.com/oa714-gonna-be-hard-for-steve-bannons-sugar-daddy-to-write-those-checks-from-prison/ Kwok superseding indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.19.0_1.pdf Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5a/compiledact-95-521/title-I Washington v. FDA Motion for Clarification https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.81.0_3.pdf Washington v. FDA Motion to Expedite https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.82.0.pdf FDA 5th Circuit Motion to Stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.20.0_4.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Intervenors 5th Circuit Motion to Stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.22.1_1.pdf Robert EOY report on the Supreme Court 2021 https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2021year-endreport.pdf NPR on 2022 state supreme court races https://www.npr.org/2022/11/05/1134514218/money-is-pouring-into-state-judicial-campaigns-this-year ProPublica Thomas story https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow Wall Street Journal on federal judges violating the ethics laws https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
11-4-2023 • 52 minuten, 59 seconden
OA722: Right-Wing Judge Appointed to the Bench to Ban Abortion... Bans Abortion
Today, Liz and Andrew break down Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's late-night Friday stay order that essentially overrules the FDA and removes mifepristone (the abortion pill) from the list of approved drugs. How bad is it? Is a parallel decision from a federal court on Washington part of the solution? What's next? Listen and find out! Notes OA 707 on Kacsmaryk https://openargs.com/oa707-peter-navarro-gets-spanked-by-government-in-presidential-records-case-with-major-implications-for-trump/ Kacsmaryk Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.137.0_14.pdf Washington v. FDA https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.80.0.pdf United States v. One Package https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14734857310809857501 FDA on REMS https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/risk-evaluation-and-mitigation-strategies-rems FDA on unapproved drugs https://www.fda.gov/drugs/enforcement-activities-fda/unapproved-drugs Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1461 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 5 U.S.C. § 705 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/705 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
10-4-2023 • 53 minuten, 50 seconden
OA721: Lock Him Up 6: Evaluating the NY Charges Against Trump
Liz and Andrew evaluate the Trump indictment and answer listener questions as well as a Just Security article critiquing their position. The Patreon bonus contains a deep dive into an Andrew Weissman statement on MSNBC on lesser-included offenses. Notes INDICTMENT https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf STATEMENT OF FACTS https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf NY Crim Proc. § 30.10 (Statute of Limitations) https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-30-10.html NY Crim Law § 175.05 https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-05.html NY Crim Law § 175.10 https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10.html People v. Hankin https://casetext.com/case/people-v-hankin People v. Saporita https://casetext.com/case/people-v-saporita-stevenson Just Security article https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
7-4-2023 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 2 seconden
OA720: LOCK HIM UP 5: No, Really, Just Lock Him Up Already
THIS IS IT! We finally have a copy of the 34-count indictment against Donald Trump by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, as well as the supporting Statement of Facts. Liz and Andrew break it ALL down for you, including all the stuff the rest of the media missed! NotesINDICTMENT https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf STATEMENT OF FACTS https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf NY Penal Law 175.10 https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10.html NY Penal Law 175.05 https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-05.html Just Security article critiquing us https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
5-4-2023 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 45 seconden
OA719: Serial's Adnan Syed & the Elected Prosecutor: A Match Made in Baltimore
On the cusp of Former President Donald Trump's arraignment, Liz and Andrew break down the recent Maryland Appellate Court's decision in Lee v. Maryland concerning Adnan Syed and the Baltimore State's Attorney's Office decision to petition to vacate his conviction and drop all charges against him. What's really going on? Why have so many media outlets gotten this wrong?? Listen and find out! Notes OA 107 https://openargs.com/oa107-adnan-syed-obviously-also-can-learn-patents/ OA 633 https://openargs.com/oa633-why-adnan-was-released/ Lee v. Maryland https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf Md. Code, Crim. Pro. Art., § 8-301.1 https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2021/criminal-procedure/title-8/subtitle-3/section-8-301-1/ Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-102 https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-maryland/article-criminal-procedure/title-11-victims-and-witnesses/subtitle-1-general-provisions/part-i-definitions-rights-available-throughout-proceedings/section-11-102-victims-right-to-attend-proceedings -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
4-4-2023 • 44 minuten, 5 seconden
OA718: Why Fox News "Has a Nuanced Approach to Falsity"
Today, Liz and Andrew break down the latest ruling in Delaware granting Dominion partial summary judgment in its defamation lawsuit against Fox. Learn exactly why this is a devastating ruling and what it means for the future of everyone's favorite "Fair and Balanced" news channel. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew update everyone on the latest between Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and clueless goon Gym Jordan. Notes OA 705 https://openargs.com/oa705-can-dominion-really-take-down-fox-news/ Summary Judgment Order https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23738695/dominion-fox-summary-judgment-order.pdf Pitch Deck https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23731963/dominion_3-21-23_hearing_slides-used-at-hearing_redacted.pdf 3/31 Bragg Letter https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-37d2-dd77-a1cf-7ff7d0920000 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
3-4-2023 • 55 minuten, 38 seconden
OA717: LOCK HIM UP 4: Trump Gets Indicted, DeSantis Gets Spanked
HERE IT IS! Liz and Andrew begin the show by reacting to the news of Trump's indictment while we await the actual copy of the document. After that, the team breaks down how Disney outmaneuvered that dumpy Trump knockoff (Ron DeSantis) with the aid of every law student's worst nightmare: the Rule Against Perpetuities! Notes OA 710 https://openargs.com/oa710-lock-him-up/ OA 711 https://openargs.com/oa711-lock-him-up-2-the-secret-of-the-ooze/ OA 712 https://openargs.com/oa712-lock-him-up-3-rise-of-the-machines/ Text of “Don’t Say Gay” law, HB 1557 http://laws.flrules.org/2022/22 FL Stat. Ch. 189 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0189/Sections/0189.012.html RCID Charter https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter.pdf HB 9B https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0009Ber.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0009B&Session=2023B Reedy Creek Declaration of Restrictive Covenants https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23734248-disney-board-covenant -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
31-3-2023 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 45 seconden
OA 716: Jim Jordan is Not Alvin Bragg's Daddy
Liz and Andrew break down several developments in the ongoing effort to hold Trump accountable, including the back-and-forth between Jim Jordan's "Committee on Oversight" and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Oh, and is Mike Pence going to testify to Jack Smith's Grand Jury? Listen and find out! Along the way we take a deep dive into Congress's power to conduct investigations, the Tenth Amendment, how bad originalism is, and much, much more! Notes OA 708 https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/ Politico: Manhattan Trump grand jury set to break for a month https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/29/manhattan-trump-grand-jury-set-to-break-for-a-month-00089422 AMI non-prosecution agreement https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download Liz Wonkette https://www.wonkette.com/new-house-committee-to-answer-burning-questions-what-did-nancy-pelosi-coup-and-when-did-she-coup-it Jordan 3/20 Letter to Bragg https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-20-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-trump-investigation.pdf Bragg Response Letter March 23, 2023 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23720988/20230323-letter-response-from-manhattan-da.pdf Jordan Response Letter March 25 https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-25-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-subpoena-and-response.pdf Watkins v. US, 354 U.S. 178 (1957) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=562722361999206621 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
30-3-2023 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 10 seconden
OA715: Fox Blunders Into Dumpster Fire Lawsuit. No, A Different One.
Today, Liz and Andrew break down (former) Fox News producer Abby Grossberg's lawsuit against Fox, and what implications it may have for Dominion's pending $1.6 billion defamation suit against Fox. Notes OA 694: Dominion v. Fox: Defamation Suits Are Hard But Shutting Up is Harder https://openargs.com/oa694-dominion-v-fox-defamation-suits-are-hard-but-shutting-up-is-harder/ OA 705: Can Dominion Really Take Down Fox News?? https://openargs.com/oa705-can-dominion-really-take-down-fox-news/ FMLA https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/chapter-28 Upjohn v. US, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5153750416071396937 Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713 (2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991806128851668843 Dominion MSJ https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf Fox TRO Motion v. Abby Grossberg https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=qP3YkE2tdjchZ45eMXvjLA== Fox Emergency Motion to Seal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.9.0.pdf Order Denying Motion to Seal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.11.0.pdf Grossberg Amended Complaint v. Fox https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.12.0.pdf Grossberg Original Complaint v. Fox https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.1.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
28-3-2023 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 8 seconden
OA714: Gonna Be Hard for Steve Bannon's Sugar Daddy to Write Those Checks From Prison
Liz and Andrew break down the strange criminal indictment of Guo Wengui a.k.a. a lot of other names, grifter to the stars and patron to Steve Bannon, and discuss the larger implications of the far-right merger with anti-CCP grifters. You won't want to miss it! Notes OA700 https://openargs.com/oa700-rumors-of-trumps-testimony-in-strzok-suit-may-be-greatly-exaggerated/ Steve Wynn indictment https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63317117/attorney-general-of-the-united-states-of-america-v-wynn/ Guo Wengui bankruptcy docket (CT) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctb.307068/gov.uscourts.ctb.307068.78.0.pdf Guo Wengui indictment https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1574491/download -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
27-3-2023 • 48 minuten, 47 seconden
OA713: State AGs Sue Anthony Fauci For... Booting Them Off Twitter??
With a slight break from Trump, Liz and Andrew turn to the pernicious effects of Trump's many, many appointments to the federal judiciary and how it's almost impossible to distinguish nonsense from reality any more. Specifically, the two break down Missouri v. Biden, an absolutely insane lawsuit that somehow has convinced the attorneys general of two states to sign on with a cavalcade of weirdo anti-vax COVID deniers and losers. We talk about what that development means for the future of the rule of law. Notes OA 25 https://openargs.com/oa25-jill-stein-decide-presidency-no/ OA 689 https://openargs.com/oa689-lawsuit-or-interpretive-dance-why-not-both/ OA 707 https://openargs.com/oa707-peter-navarro-gets-spanked-by-government-in-presidential-records-case-with-major-implications-for-trump/ OA 708 https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/ OA 710 https://openargs.com/oa710-lock-him-up/ Doughty opinion in Louisiana v. Becerra (COVID vaccine mandate injunction) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.185837/gov.uscourts.lawd.185837.28.0_1.pdf Missouri v. Biden Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.84.0.pdf Missouri v. Biden Order Denying Motion to Strike https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.219.0.pdf Missouri v. Biden Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief Supporting PI https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.214.0.pdf Missouri v. Biden Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 (Proposed Findings of Fact) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.214.1_1.pdf Defendants’ Motion to Strike in Missouri v. Biden https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.219.0.pdf Order in Missouri v. Biden Denying Motion to Strike https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.224.0.pdf Washington Post debunking Media Research Center and “The Polling Company” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/21/lawmakers-cite-fishy-poll-suggest-laptop-tale-would-have-swayed-vote/ Pew Research 2021 survey https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/06/14/facebook-posts-in-early-days-of-biden-administration-reflect-ideological-divide/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
24-3-2023 • 51 minuten, 21 seconden
OA712: LOCK HIM UP 3: Rise of the Machines
In our third of three episodes about potential criminal charges against Donald Trump, Liz and Andrew break down recent developments in the Jack Smith grand juries, including an order by Judge Beryl Howell requiring one of Trump's lawyers to testify against him, as well as an update on those other cases. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew break down the recent Report and Recommendation by Special Master Barbara Jones in the search warrant of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Notes OA 710 https://openargs.com/oa710-lock-him-up/ OA 711 https://openargs.com/oa711-lock-him-up-2-the-secret-of-the-ooze/ NY Article 175 https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article175.php NY CPL 30.10(2)(b) https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10 Bobb certification https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022.08.30-DOJ-Exhibits.pdf DC Circuit Notice on Preferred Typeface https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/Announcement+-+Notice+-+Preferred+Typefaces+for+Briefs/$FILE/noticePreferredTypefacesForBriefs.pdf FRAP 35 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_35 Special Master Barbara Jones Report and Recommendation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.569993/gov.uscourts.nysd.569993.52.0.pdf NYT on Manhattan GJ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/22/nyregion/trump-grand-jury-delay.html?smid=tw-share -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
23-3-2023 • 40 minuten, 13 seconden
OA711: LOCK HIM UP 2: The Secret of the Ooze
Yesterday, Liz and Andrew brought you a bit of a bummer - but an accurate one - regarding the pending indictment of Donald Trump in New York. Today, they bring you the good news about yet another pending indictment in Fulton County, Georgia and Trump's desperate (and likely failing) attempts to stop it. You won't want to miss it! Notes Anna Bower Lawfare explainer https://www.lawfareblog.com/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-georgia-special-purpose-grand-juries-were-afraid-ask Atlanta Journal-Constitiution interview with foreperson https://www.ajc.com/politics/exclusive-behind-the-scenes-of-the-trump-grand-jury/6CXLKTFMKNDU7O6TER4B7UTZPE/ Georgia RICO statute, Title 16, Chapter 14 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-16/chapter-14/ Ga. Code 16-14-3 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-16/chapter-14/section-16-14-3/ Ga. Code 16-10-20 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-16/chapter-10/article-2/section-16-10-20/ Trump motion to quash https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23718113-ex-parte-fulton-county-grand-jury-03-20-2023-102331-37306996-f8b43da6-144b-4544-ab53-4095c1c5f36d State v. Lampl, 770 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13555564276998303856 Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9143673394692693115 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725 Skilling v. U.S., 561 U.S. 358 (2010) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6709078768346680936 State v. Bartel, 479 S.E.2d 4 (1996) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2075548165303328436 Kenerly v. State, 715 S.E.2d 688 (Ga. App. 2011) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3363311285530927015 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
21-3-2023 • 57 minuten, 51 seconden
OA710: LOCK HIM UP (?!)
THIS IS IT! Liz and Andrew answer all your legal questions regarding the anticipated imminent indictment of Donald Trump. Notes OA 708 https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/ OA 621 https://openargs.com/oa621-the-fbi-goes-to-mar-a-lago-this-is-big/ 18 U.S.C. § 2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 NY Section 570 https://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article570.php CPL 190.50 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/190.50 18 U.S. Code § 3056 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056 Tekni-Plex v. Meyner & Landis, 674 NE 2d 663 (NY 1996) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10926959041167260833 Liz ATL on Tacopina https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/trump-lawyer-joseph-tacopina-formerly-consulted-with-stormy-daniels-whoopsie/ Rice and Nuzzi New York Magazine article https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop-investigation.html Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Who Can Be President of the United States?: Candidate Hillary Clinton and the Problem of Statutory Qualifications,’ 5(1) British Journal of American Legal Studies 95 (2016) (peer review) Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Secretary Clinton Can Relax Because Section 2071 Disqualification Does Not Apply to the Presidency: A Response to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Cause of Action (with a Short Reply from Attorney General Mukasey)’ (2015) -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law –Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
20-3-2023 • 1 uur, 53 seconden
OA709: The Law of "March Madness!"
Today, Liz and Andrew take a break from the world of politics (except for Patrons) to bring you the history and law surrounding "March Madness," including whether it was legal to fill out your bracket and how the NCAA approaches its trademarks. Along the way, we'll learn how the current right-wing Supreme Court is going to use a gambling decision to further its activist agenda. If you like basketball -- and even if you don't! -- you won't want to miss it! The Patreon bonus is all about Jenna Ellis and Trump's legal team, and Liz brings the funny. Notes NBC Sports, History of March Madness https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/where-did-march-madness-name-come NCAA Trademarks https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/12/2/ncaa-trademarks.aspx 15 U.S.C. § 1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 Kizzang lawsuit https://dlbjbjzgnk95t.cloudfront.net/0899000/899955/https-ecf-insd-uscourts-gov-doc1-07315826374.pdf Mitchell Stabbe https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2023/03/articles/march-madness-and-advertising-use-of-ncaa-trademarks-2023-update-part-1/ NCAA Brackets guidelines https://www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public-s3/images/2021/10/12/2021-22_Use_of_NCAA_Championship_Brackets_and_Limits_on_Advertising.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-VI/chapter-178 49 U.S. Code § 41713 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/41713 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6336903476694992840 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law –Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
17-3-2023 • 45 minuten, 26 seconden
OA708: Stormy Daniels Strikes Back!
Today, Liz and Andrew tackle the rumors swirling around the Manhattan DA's office that Donald Trump is about to be indicted in connection with the 2016 payment of hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Will Stormy indeed be the one to take down Trump? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew update you on Alex Jones's bankruptcies. Notes OA 154: Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius! https://openargs.com/oa154-stormy-daniels-is-a-legal-genius/ DB Story https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-an-offer-to-testify-before-a-new-york-grand-jury-signals-trouble-for-trump Karen McDougal story https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596257288/former-playboy-model-spills-alleged-affair-details-trump-tried-to-pay-her AMI non-prosecution agreement https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download 52 U.S.C., Subchapter I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/subtitle-III/chapter-301/subchapter-I NY Penal Law 175.05 https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/pen/part-3/title-k/article-175/175-05/ New York Penal Law 65.10 https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-2-sentences/title-e-sentences/article-65-sentences-of-probation-conditional-discharge-and-unconditional-discharge/section-6510-conditions-of-probation-and-of-conditional-discharge N.Y. Penal Law 255.17 https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/pen/part-3/title-o/article-255/255-17/ NY CPL 30.10 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10 11 USC § 523 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
16-3-2023 • 46 minuten, 4 seconden
OA707: Peter Navarro Gets Spanked By Government In Presidential Records Case With Major Implications For Trump
Today, Liz and Andrew break down the DOJ's sweeping win "in replevin" against Trump loyalist goon Peter Navarro. What's replevin? Why do we care? Listen and find out for this case that has significant implications for the Presidential Records Act, which in turn may have significant implications for any former Presidents who have refused to give back their Presidential records. We begin with a terrifying development in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, currently on the desk of Liz's sworn enemy, Judge Kacsmaryk. Notes Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. the FDA https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65768749/alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-v-us-food-and-drug-administration/?order_by=desc Cato Institute on Navarro https://www.cato.org/commentary/spectacular-economic-ignorance-peter-navarro Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-22 Stern Letter to Navarro https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941.1.4_1.pdf DOJ Civil Division Letter to Navarro https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941.1.6_1.pdf Irving Letter https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941.1.5_3.pdf US v. Dean, 989 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1993) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1562611946262688408 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10520682160164643446 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
14-3-2023 • 52 minuten, 47 seconden
OA706: Flynn "Sold Out" His Country... and Now He's Suing It!
Liz and Andrew break down the latest LOLsuit from Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. You may recall Gen. Flynn from screeching "Lock Her Up!" on the campaign trail while surreptitiously serving as an unauthorized lobbyist for Turkey's brutal authoritarian regime. You may recall him as a pro-Russian stooge who lied about being a pro-Russian stooge. And you may recall him as having been pardoned by Donald Trump after Bill Barr tried to rig the Department of Justice in his favor. However you remember this bozo, you'll be shocked to discover that he now thinks he deserves FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS for... having friends in high places. Fortunately, his lawsuit doesn't stand a chance in hell of succeeding, as Liz and Andrew make clear. Notes Flynn complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.411523/gov.uscourts.flmd.411523.1.0.pdf OA Amicus Brief http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020.06.09-Amicus-Brief.pdf OA Amicus Show (Episode 394) https://openargs.com/oa394-the-amicus-show/ OA 689 https://openargs.com/oa689-lawsuit-or-interpretive-dance-why-not-both/ 22 U.S.C. § 618 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/618 18 U.S.C. § 371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/951 2019 DOJ Report on Crossfire Hurricane https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf 28 U.S.C. Chapter 171 https://t.co/sFiQAXafWI 28 U.S.C. § 2401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2401 Form 95 https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/claim-damage-injury-or-death 28 U.S.C. § 2675 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2675 Sconiers v. US, 896 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2018) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8262809632148475317 Flynn v. Pelosi https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61634816/flynn-v-pelosi/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc OA 696 https://openargs.com/oa696-in-which-james-okeefe-pretends-to-be-a-journalist/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
13-3-2023 • 1 uur, 48 seconden
OA705: Can Dominion Really Take Down Fox News??
THIS IS AN EPISODE YOU'LL WANT TO SHARE! Today, Liz and Andrew break down the latest developments in Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News. You know some of the salacious details that have been leaked, but you don't know just how badly Fox has mangled the law. You won't want to miss it! Notes Bartiromo-Fratto emails https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23697625-bartiromo-fratto-summary-redacted Exhibits - Delightfully mad emails https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23698221/redacted-149-200.pdf Dominion MSJ https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf Dominion Reply Supporting SJ https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-03-08-PUBLIC-Dominion-SJ-Reply-Brief-Fox_Redacted.pdf Fox News Reply Brief Supporting SJ https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/25-FNN-SJ-Reply-Brief.pdf Edwards v. National Audobon Society, 556 F.2d 113 (1977) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=515638952298472646 Hogan v. Herald Co., 84 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. 4th App.Div. 1982) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14598091554089425482 Brian v. Richardson, 660 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1995) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15437079674012061938 BONUS! Page v. Oath Inc., 270 A.3d 833 (Del. 2022) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3804284272223089234 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
10-3-2023 • 58 minuten, 14 seconden
OA704: Democrats Play Offense On January 6!
Today, Liz and Andrew break down how the Democrats are playing offense with respect to Republican efforts to gaslight America and whitewash the findings of the January 6th Committee. Specifically, they tell you about the 316-page report on GOP Witnesses that Jim Jordan is trying (and failing) to call whistleblowers. You won't want to miss this breakdown! But first, Andrew has to update you on the latest right-wing lies about that dingus Raland Brunson and his nonsense pleadings in the Supreme Court. Notes OA 668 https://openargs.com/oa668-a-new-case-right-wing-sources-are-blatantly-lying-about/ OA 692 https://openargs.com/oa693-mike-pence-cant-testify-against-trump-cause-hes-a-senator-now/ AP, “Supreme Court Will Not Hear Case to Oust Biden, Reinstate Trump” https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-supreme-court-trump-biden-election-850929590422 House Judiciary Report on GOP Witnesses https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2023-03-02_gop_witnesses_report.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 2303 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2303 18 U.S.C. § 1752 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752 D.C. Code § 10–503.16 https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/10-503.16 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
9-3-2023 • 54 minuten, 17 seconden
OA703: You Win a Toy Yoda! And 100 Grand!
Today, Liz and Andrew provide an update on the new Republican broadside against Fani Willis in Georgia before breaking down the law around bad April Fool's Day jokes. Notes New York Times article on Indiana legislation https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/05/us/republicans-district-attorneys-trump.html Georgia SB 92 https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/216780 GA Constitution Art. VI, Sec. VIII, Paragraph II https://law.justia.com/constitution/georgia/conart6.html McLaughlin v. Payne, 761 S.E.2d 289 (Ga. 2014) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18437690967547452063 29 U.S. § 216 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216 Fast v. Cash Depot, Ltd. http://hr.cch.com/ELD/FastCash110718.pdf Gill lawsuit https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/100-Grand-lawsuit.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
7-3-2023 • 47 minuten, 55 seconden
OA702: Will Donald Trump Be Held Civilly Liable for Inciting the January 6th Insurrection?
Today, Liz and Andrew break down the latest developments in Blassingame v. Trump, a set of consolidated cases pending in the DC Circuit that will affect whether Donald Trump will have to compensate the victims of his attempted January 6th coup. You won't want to miss this one! Notes US amicus brief in Blassingame v. Trump https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510.1218497852.0_4.pdf 42 U.S.C. 1985 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
6-3-2023 • 51 minuten, 38 seconden
OA701: Fox's Defamation F-Tussle and the Texas Broodmare Tax
Today, Liz and Andrew break down two stories that are all over the news: a proposed new bill in Texas that is an assault on both marriage equality and families. And then we have an update on how Dominion is doing in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News. You won't want to miss it! Notes Texas HB 2889 https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB02889I.htm TX Biennial Property Tax Report 2020-2021 https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Biennial-Property-Tax-Report-Texas.pdf 2005 IRS bulletin - Frivolous Tax arguments https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb05-14.pdf 2007 IRS bulletin - more frivolous Tax arguments https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb07-14.pdf Flora v. US, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13305625317215905 Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1082206999326140100 US v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15904210835021146815 Equal Dignity for Married Taxpayers Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3833/text?r=98&s=1 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
3-3-2023 • 57 minuten, 31 seconden
OA699: Will Scumbag Payday Lenders Use the Supreme Court to Crush Liz Warren's Dreams??
Today, Liz and Andrew take a deep dive into Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, a case that the Supreme Court just granted certiorari to review. Is the conservative Roberts court going to gut Liz Warren's signature accomplishment, the CFPB? Listen and find out! (Yes, Andrew screwed up the numbering so you got episode #700 before #699... now everything should be good!) Notes CFPB v. CFSAA cert petition and 5th Circuit opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-448/246429/20221114155607407_No.%20CFPB%20et%20al.%20v.%20CFSA%20et%20al.pdf Responsible lending https://www.responsiblelending.org/research-publication/fact-v-fiction-truth-about-payday-lending-industry-claims The Victims of Payday Lending https://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/victims-payday OA 126 https://openargs.com/oa126-mick-mulvaney-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/ 12 C.F.R. § 1041.8 https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1041/8/ 12 U.S.C. § 5511 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5511 Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 207 (2020) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14557349188638541514 12 U.S.C. 5497 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1013607894853666546 Kate Stith, Congress’s Power of the Purse, 97 Yale L.J. 1343 (1988) https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/16554/62_97YaleLJ1343_June1988_.pdf?sequence=2 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
2-3-2023 • 47 minuten, 26 seconden
OA700: Rumors Of Trump's Testimony In Strzok Suit May Be Greatly Exaggerated
You may have seen the news accounts that a court ordered Donald Trump (and FBI director Chris Wray) to be deposed in connection with a lawsuit. Well, today, Liz and Andrew break down the DOJ's ongoing battle with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Why is the government still fighting this? Will they really get to depose Trump? Listen and find out! Notes 5 U.S.C. 552a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a Lisa Page's story to Molly Jong-Fast https://www.thedailybeast.com/lisa-page-speaks-theres-no-fathomable-way-i-have-committed-any-crime-at-all Hatch Act https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title5/html/USCODE-2015-title5-partIII-subpartF-chap73-subchapIII.htm#:~:text=%C2%A77321.,political%20processes%20of%20the%20Nation Strzok response https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.88.0.pdf EO 13233 https://sgp.fas.org/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html Strzok opposition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.100.0.pdf Strzok filing re motion to quash subpoenas for Trump and Wray, apex doctrine https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.88.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
28-2-2023 • 54 minuten, 47 seconden
OA698: Will Clarence Thomas Break the Internet? (Probably Not.)
Liz and Andrew break down a much-requested case, Gonzalez v. Google, that the Supreme Court just heard on oral argument. Will it break the Internet? Listen and find out! Notes Legal Eagle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M&ab_channel=LegalEagle OA 390 https://openargs.com/oa390-trumps-war-on-twitter-a-deep-dive-on-section-230/ OA 451 https://openargs.com/oa451-section-230-and-tulsis-transphobia/ 47 U.S.C. § 230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software, 5902 U.S. ____ (2020) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf Google Opp. Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf Petitioners’ Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf Respondents’ Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf Petitioners’ Reply https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/254251/20230207191257813_GonzalezRepyMeritsPrinted.pdf Government Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/249441/20221207203557042_21-1333tsacUnitedStates.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
27-2-2023 • 51 minuten, 24 seconden
OA697: Feelin' the Brn(ovich)
Today is one of those good news/bad news episodes. In good news, Arizona has shined some light on a report that election denier Mark Brnovich tried to bury regarding (nonexistent) voter fraud and the 2020 election. In bad news, Florida is trying to overturn the Supreme Court because Ron DeSantis hates the press. And in great news... well, you'll just have to listen and find out! Notes OA 688 https://openargs.com/oa688-oh-no-the-privilege-is-mine/ Florida HB 951 https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/951/BillText/Filed/PDF Florida HB 991 https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/991/BillText/Filed/PDF Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11598860258825518787 Federal flag bill https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-120/pdf/STATUTE-120-Pg572.pdf#page=1 FL flag bill http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0720/Sections/0720.304.html AZ Appellate decision in Lake v. Hobbs https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Lake-COA-Ruling.pdf Liz Wonkette on Kari Lake and Ryan Heath https://www.wonkette.com/breaking-kari-lake-still-not-governor Executive Summary https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/4ca5c5d9-3254-2b94-dbd8-bd2a6ea8b7c3/Election_Review_Summary.pdf Email draft correcting Brnovich https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/8295e52f-b336-c17e-8cbd-3c0255c99ab6/Kanefield_Fann_Document.01.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
24-2-2023 • 59 minuten
OA696: In Which James O'Keefe Pretends to Be A Journalist
Today, Liz and Andrew visit the strange world of James O'Keefe and his agitprop outfit, Project Veritas. Along the way we'll learn about a bunch of cases, the law of prior restraint, and much, much more! Notes Project Veritas $22 million https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/272894856 Federal Docket O'Keefe v. Twitter https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59899639/okeefe-iii-v-twitter-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc NY Appellate docs - O’Keefe v. Twitter https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=OihBJQsmc7aFb4qIIdOKeA== Liz ATL on O’Keefe-CNN https://abovethelaw.com/2021/04/project-veritas-gonna-sue-twitter-for-defamatory-section-230-censorship-and-first-amendment-assault-or-something/ Project Veritas Docket (00813) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61377333/parties/in-re-search-warrant-dated-november-5-2021/ Project Veritas Board of Directors https://www.projectveritas.com/news/statement-from-the-project-veritas-board-of-directors/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
23-2-2023 • 55 minuten, 52 seconden
OA695: Ken Paxton Isn't the Boss of You
Today, Liz and Andrew tackle some listener feedback, resume their discussion of the crime-fraud exception, and end with perhaps Ken Paxton's craziest lawsuit (and that's saying a lot)! Notes Federalist Papers No. 68 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp Crime/fraud NYT story https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/us/politics/trump-lawyer-classified-documents-investigation.html Liz ATL of Paxton’s ethics and counter-investigation https://abovethelaw.com/2022/05/tx-ag-ken-paxton-launches-bogus-investigation-of-state-bar-still-winds-up-with-ethics-lawsuit/ Texas v. Garland https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.373284/gov.uscourts.txnd.373284.4.0_1.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
21-2-2023 • 52 minuten, 49 seconden
OA694: Dominion v. Fox: Defamation Suits Are Hard But Shutting Up is Harder
Today is one of those shows you'll want to share around. EVERYONE is talking about the bombshell revelations from Fox News, but only Liz and Andrew can help you understand how we got here and what it all means! Notes Original Dominion-Fox Complaint https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20527880-dominion-v-fox-news-complaint Dominion lawsuit against OAN https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21039565/dominion-oan-complaint.pdf Dominion Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf DE State docket https://courtconnect.courts.delaware.gov/cc/cconnect/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?case_id=N21C-03-257&begin_date=&end_date=#dockets Fox Corp MSJ https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Redacted-Public-Version-Fox-Corp-Opening-MSJ-Brief.pdf Fox News MSJ https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Redacted-Public-Version-FNN-Opening-MSJ-Brief.pdf Fox News anti-SLAPP counterclaim https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/PUBLIC-VERSION-FNNs-First-Amended-Counterclaim-Accepted.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
20-2-2023 • 55 minuten, 24 seconden
OA693: Is It A Good Thing When Your Lawyer Is Subpoenaed by a Grand Jury to Testify Against You? (No.)
Today is a Rapid Response Friday, and Liz and Andrew break down all the developments with the two grand juries convened by Jack Smith to investigate Donald Trump's various crimes. Oh, and we also analyze the released portions of the Fulton County grand jury report which reveals a bit more than you might think! We've also learned that a bunch of Trump lawyers have been subpoenaed to testify or otherwise the subject of grand jury questions, and you may be wondering how that's possible, and we walk you through when privilege is.. not privilege! Notes Unredacted portions of Fulton County SPGJ Report https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23683158/2022-ex-000024-ex-parte-order-of-the-judge-5.pdf FRE 501 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_501 Bobb says she’s not a lawyer in documents case https://www.salon.com/2022/10/03/attorney-lawyers-up--and-says-shes-willing-to-cooperate-with-doj-in-mar-a-lago-case-report/ NYT Epshteyn story https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/us/politics/trump-lawyer-classified-documents-investigation.html -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
17-2-2023 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 30 seconden
OA693: Mike Pence Can't Testify Against Trump, 'Cause He's a Senator Now!
In today's episode, Andrew and Liz briefly discuss the breaking news that Mike Pence intends to assert the "speech or debate clause" as a reason to protect insurrectionists, delve into Ken Paxton's latest settlement, and update you on the World's Dumbest Supreme Court litigants! Notes Paxton settlement https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23607998-211027_mtn-to-abate Whistleblower Petition https://thetexan.news/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Paxton-Whistleblower-Lawsuit-Documents-Through-Feb.-9-Filing.pdf Appellate court decision https://cases.justia.com/texas/third-court-of-appeals/2021-03-21-00161-cv.pdf?ts=1634818950 Paxton bar complaint https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D8OH23E-E4hD7Bgn0cY_zEQxdqFtF8u5/view Webster dismissal https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/SBOT%20v.%20BW%20Letter%20Ruling.pdf Raland J. Brunson cert petition https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/243739/20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf Petition for Rehearing https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/253190/20230126114616761_rehearing%2022-380.pdf Supreme Court Rule 44 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_44 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
16-2-2023 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 51 seconden
OA691: Donald Trump and the Magical Classified Nightlight
Today, Liz and Andrew break down a number of stories, all of which are bad news for Donald Trump, and we put all of them into the context of Trump's crimes. We also preview the forthcoming release of part of the Fulton County, GA special purpose grand jury report. Phew! First, Liz continues to update us on the E. Jean Carroll litigation, this time focusing on Trump's post-discovery stunt in which he now is willing to offer his DNA. Find out why this is a disingenous stunt and find out all the law explaining why. Then we learn more -- much more -- than you ever wanted to learn about Trump's document retention and destruction policies. Hint: it involves nightlights and toilets, and no, we are not making that up. Notes Carroll II Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/carroll-v-trump/?order_by=desc Jan 6 Committee Report https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf Feb 10 Trump "Truth" https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/109844321125474837 McBurney order https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23608438/2022-ex-000024-ex-parte-filing-12.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
15-2-2023 • 59 minuten, 42 seconden
OA690: Jack Smith Speaks Softly but Carries a Big Subpoena
In today's episode, Liz and Andrew break down all the developments in the two federal criminal investigations pending about former President Donald Trump that have been delegated to Special Counsel Jack Smith. First, in the documents case, Liz and Andrew discuss why -- all of a sudden -- Trump's team seems to be voluntarily turning over documents, along with a grand jury appearance by Trump's lawyer, Evan "the Cork" Corcoran. Is this normal? (No.) Then, Andrew and Liz break down the bombshell news that Mike Pence has been subpoenaed to appear before Smith's grand jury, presumably to discuss 1/6-related issues. Liz brings her journalistic instincts to bear and Andrew tells us all about that other executive privilege case involving a certain former President who also definitely was not a crook. Notes CNN Trump handover of docs https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/trump-classified-records-laptop/index.html 18 USC § 793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Washington Post on Judge Howell https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/08/trump-contempt-mar-a-lago-records/ Trump Subpoena Issued https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/12/trump-was-issued-subpoena-for-folder-marked-classified-evening-briefing-discovered-at-mar-a-lago OA13 https://openargs.com/oa13-hillary-clintons-damned-emails/ NYT Article on Pence Search https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/us/politics/pence-fbi-home-search.html Bloomberg article on Evan the Cork testifying https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-11/trump-lawyer-in-mar-a-lago-search-appeared-before-grand-jury Washington post on Trump’s hiring of Evan the Cork https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/ Order appointing Jack Smith - Appointment Order 5599-2022 https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1552896/download Pence subpoenaed https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/us/politics/pence-subpoena-trump.html US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5132513257326080850 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
13-2-2023 • 55 minuten, 15 seconden
OA689: Lawsuit or Interpretive Dance? Why Not Both!
Today's episode begins with a brief mention of the breaking news about Mike Pence that we will be covering in depth as soon as we know more! Then, we look at a couple of lawsuits and learn why Liz isn't always a fan of the OA "read the complaint backwards" method. Does she convince Andrew? Listen and find out! We break down the latest conspiracy counterclaims from One America Network News, while learning the difference between the conservative persecution complex worldview -- that Big Tech is censoring conservatism because reasons -- and the reality: that big companies are funding and propping up garbage conservative outlets like OANN. After that, we move on to arguably the Worst People in the World: anti-vaxxers. Specifically, we look at a lawsuit by RFK, Jr. and a whole bunch of weirdos against All the Media for kicking them off YouTube and Twitter. It's... something, all right. But! At least we learn a little something about the Trusted News Initiative anti-trust and the media along the way. Notes SOTU Fact-check https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/us/politics/fact-check-biden-state-of-the-union.html Dominion complaint against OAN https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.234315/gov.uscourts.dcd.234315.1.0.pdf OAN California Lawsuit https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21410177/oann-lawsuit.pdf RFK lawsuit https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.371829/gov.uscourts.txnd.371829.1.0.pdf Liz Backgrounder at Wonkette https://www.wonkette.com/antivaxx-loons-rfk-jr-jim-hoft-other-idiots-sue-news-outlets-for-booting-them-off-twitter J.W. Howard Attorneys: We Have A Big Pirate Ship! https://jwhowardattorneys.com/ Trusted News Initiative https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/ Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12116214944985887583
10-2-2023 • 48 minuten, 31 seconden
OA688: Oh No, the Privilege is MINE!
Today, Liz and Andrew have two stories for us, each touching on executive privilege. We begin with a quick fun Liz story where what comes around, goes around, particularly in Georgia. Then, for the first main story, Liz gives us a detailed update in the E. Jean Carroll litigation, where Trump has finally replaced Alina Habba with an actual lawyer. How's that going to go for him? Hint: probably still not great. After that, Andrew picks up a story involving the January 6th Committee, the New York Times, Politico, Judge Beryl A. Howell, executive privilege, and the world's longest minute order. It's a deep dive and a breaking news story all in one! Notes It's okay to vote while black in Georgia! https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/02/08/black-volunteers-passing-out-water-at-2020-albany-voting-site-cleared-of-wrongdoing Facts about Georgia's restrictions https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/29/josh-holmes/facts-about-georgias-ban-food-water-giveaways-vote/ Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1768307810279741111 The world's longest minute order https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65636836/application-of-the-new-york-times-company-and-charlie-savage-for-access-to/?order_by=desc Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842 (D.C. Cir. 2019) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3726944855474329424&q=mckeever+v+barr&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]
9-2-2023 • 52 minuten, 50 seconden
Andrew Torrez - Apology
This is my apology for recent events.
7-2-2023 • 6 minuten, 9 seconden
OA687: Trump Sues Woodward, Gets Close to Making a Valid Legal Argument
A new record for him! Today Liz Dye has two stories for us. First, Trump has sued Bob Woodward for profiting off of his voice in his new book. Does he have a case? Well, almost assuredly not. But he happens to come close to a real argument, and you know, that's like really impressive! Then, Liz breaks down new news on Hunter Biden's laptop. It's still so confusing but Liz helps us make sense of it!
3-2-2023 • 50 minuten, 20 seconden
OA686: The Robot Lawyers Are Coming! ...Or Are They?
It's Liz ThursDYE! Lots has been made of the robots coming for the lawyer jobs... But is it all it's cracked up to be? Should a human use a lawyer to argue in front of the Supreme Court? Or is that... the single stupidest idea in history? Find out, with Liz Dye!
2-2-2023 • 50 minuten, 52 seconden
OA685: The Alec Baldwin Charges
It's the return of Mo's Poplaw Lawpod! Ace associate Morgan Stringer breaks down the tragic death of up-and-coming cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Charges were filed against Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.
31-1-2023 • 54 minuten, 35 seconden
OA684: Why We Haven't Seen the Georgia Grand Jury Report Yet
Some people are pissed about this, but should they be? What's happening and will Trump be charged in Georgia over his "perfect phone call?" Find out! Click here for full links and show notes!
30-1-2023 • 47 minuten, 43 seconden
OA683: Peter Navarro Pursues Executive Privilege Through the Sands of Time
Lots of news today! Secret documents found in Mike Pence's house and also in your house and your spouse is actually secret documents. Then Andrew brings us some really interesting speculation on why Ken Cuccinelli was called in to before Jack Smith's grand jury that no one else has talked about. And finally, asshole Peter Navarro has pulled out all the stops in pursuit of his executive privilege claim, including now... time travel? Click here for full links and show notes!
27-1-2023 • 57 minuten, 12 seconden
OA682: Trump Forced to Pay SO Many Other People's Legal Fees...
It's Liz WednesDye! Liz brings us the delightful schadenfreude of Trump's many vexatious lawsuits blowing up in his face, resulting in paying a lot in legal fees for other people's lawyers. But is it enough?
26-1-2023 • 47 minuten, 45 seconden
OA681: The New Republican House Rules Are... Yikes.
Action packed show today! The House Jan 6 Committee still has effects from beyond the grave. Fireball whiskey is making knockoffs of itself? And yeah, those new Republican House Rules are garbage and should feel like garbage. Click here for full links and show notes!
24-1-2023 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 55 seconden
OA680: The Pathetic SCOTUS Leak Investigation Fizzles
THEY DIDN'T EVEN ASK ALITO about the allegations of him leaking a prior decision. These weren't like, tabloid Occupy Democrats allegations either. These were in the New York gdamn Times. Didn't even look into it. Then, Reynal not sanctioned in CT but like, he might as well have been. And Dersh is STILL lying his ass off. This isn't a repeat. It's a new more pathetic set of lies every episode almost. Click here for full links and show notes!
23-1-2023 • 48 minuten, 51 seconden
OA679: Norm Can't Stop Effing Up at Lawyering
Plus, commingling secret documents with personal things: bad when Trump does it, but not when Biden does it? Is the left being hypocritical on that? And, EVEN MORE lawyer sanctioning as Reynal gets slapped down in Texas. Here are the entire show notes and links.
It's just so bad and so dumb. Somehow these people are lawyers. Their arguments make T3BE look like a legal master class. Listen in for the hilarious details! Here are the show notes!
19-1-2023 • 57 minuten, 26 seconden
OA677: Our Critical Hit (Piece) On the Gizmodo's Critical Hit (Piece) on Wizards of the Coast
Hooo boy! Lots of very energetic feedback on our DnD episode. Spoiler: many, many people think Andrew totally biffed the analysis. So, he's gone through a ton of it and has some fresh analysis for you. Is this an Andrew was wrong? Find out! Here's the fb thread where you can insult Andrew. Here are the original show notes!
17-1-2023 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 15 seconden
OA676: Kel McClanahan on the Biden Docs
The story of the classified documents found in various Biden related locations is still developing, but National Security Counselors Executive Director Kel McClanahan joins us to give his expert opinion on what we know so far! For full links and show notes, go here! To find Kel on whatever Mastodon is, go to https://mstdn.social/@NatlSecCnslrs
16-1-2023 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 36 seconden
OA675: Gizmodo's Critical Hit (Piece) on Wizards of the Coast
The internet is aflame over a leaked draft of Wizards of the Coast new licensing agreement for Dungeons and Dragons. But, should they be? Our resident legal expert Andrew says no and calls the Gizmodo piece that started all of this "irresponsible fear mongering." Listen in to find out why! For full links and show notes, click here!
13-1-2023 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 39 seconden
OA674: Norm Pattis Is Taking A Little Mandated Break From Lawyering
You know the deal, Liz Dye Wednesday! Wednesdye! Liz breaks down Norm's little mandated vacation...
12-1-2023 • 53 minuten, 56 seconden
OA673: "Don't Sanction Me, I'm Old!" – Dersh
Definitely not anyone that we know of's Ethics Professor Alan Dershowitz has responded to his sanctions motion with a bunch of feeble lies. In other words, more unethical stuff. Listen in for why his defense is terrible. For full links and show notes, click here!
10-1-2023 • 53 minuten, 46 seconden
OA672: How Conservative Courts Rewrite History
Andrew takes us back into Citizens United to illustrate for the umpteenth time just how glaringly dishonest originalists are, and the rabbit trail takes us all the way to 1910's Montana and elections bought and paid for at $750 a pop. In the first segment, is Clint Curtis f@cking crazy? Yes. So, despite what Andrew said in a past episode, he will NOT be following up with him. Then, Thomas AND Chat GPT take the bar exam! For full links and show notes, click here!
9-1-2023 • 47 minuten, 53 seconden
OA671: Speaker McLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Sorry this is just so funny and we all deserve to enjoy it. We recorded this early due to a cyclone that wasn't very bomb, and yet everything Andrew said and researched remains perfectly timely as of release due to the fact that McCarthy has failed EVEN MORE VOTES. It's so great. But Andrew has for us a deep-dive on the history of this, and just how unprecedented it really is. PLUS an update – Elon Musk is still an idiot. And SO bad at business. Just... so, so bad. For full show notes including links, click here!
6-1-2023 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 9 seconden
OA670: Cassidy Hutchinson's Lawyer Was Working Against Her
Liz Dye joins us to break down the J6 bombshell news that Cassidy Hutchinson's own lawyer was apparently... not her lawyer. It's some extremely unethical stuff. Possibly criminal? Listen in! For full links and show notes, click here!
3-1-2023 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 57 seconden
OA669: The Witnesses Against Donald Trump
So much more from the Jan. 6th committee is out, and that means our esteemed Andrew Torrez stole away from holiday cheer to read hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents. What do they reveal? If Trump is indicted, who will actually make a good witness against him? The answers MAY surprise you. For full links and show notes, click here!
30-12-2022 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 7 seconden
OA668: A New Case Right Wing Sources Are Blatantly Lying About
Calling all Uncles Frank for a frank but respectful breakdown of how your right wing media sources are simply not telling you the truth. A laughably terrible "Supreme Court Petition" is going to "Rewrite the History of American Politics." Except... it will do no such thing. So if you've got an Uncle Frank in your life who you are seeing over this holiday break, point them to this episode and maybe we can start finding a tiny bit of common ground! For full show notes and links, click here.
27-12-2022 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 53 seconden
OA667: The Referrals Have Been Made. Now What Will It Take To Convict?
Andrew gives us that signature OA approach, having read every case relevant to the law Trump has potentially violated. What does the case law tell us about how to convict him? For full links and detailed show notes, go here.
23-12-2022 • 59 minuten, 36 seconden
OA666: This Week on Liz's LOLsuits
Alright look we forgot it was episode 666. But Trump has sued the Pulitzer committee and it is HILARIOUS. And... satanic? Ok no but we can pretend. Liz Dye is here with the breakdown!
22-12-2022 • 46 minuten, 45 seconden
OA665: Kari Lake Should Have Quit Several Sanctionable Lawsuits Ago. And Yet She Hasn't.
Andrew breaks down several lawsuits that threaten Democracy, albeit incredibly ineptly and feebly. They are hilariously terrible. Links: Kari Lake's Lawyers Lose Election Suit, Win Sanctions, Lake v Hobbs, Lake v Hobbs.... again, Christina Bobb, Trump Lawyer Christina Bobb Promises Kari Lake Lawsuit Is First Step Back To White House For Trump - Wonkette, This Pro-Trump Lawyer Was a Rising 'Stop the Steal' Star, His Firm Erased Him, New Documents Show Trump Repeatedly Pressed DOJ to Overturn Election, Kurt Olsen complaint, ARS 16-672, Rupert Murdoch to be deposed in $1.6 billion Dominion defamation case, nutjobs v dominion
20-12-2022 • 43 minuten, 36 seconden
OA664: Trustees Call BS on Alex Jones's Bankruptcy Shenanigans
Andrew untangles the vast web of Alex Jones's bankruptcy and uses it as an opportunity to educate us on bankruptcy law! Chapter 7 vs 11 vs... 5? Find out what it all means and why no one is buying Alex Jones's maneuvering. Links: The Small Business Reorganization Act: Big Changes for Small Businesses, Understanding the Purpose of the Subchapter V Trustee – NCBarBlog, Jones arguments, US Trustee, subchapter V trustee, Alex Jones personal bankruptcy and motion
19-12-2022 • 41 minuten, 14 seconden
OA663: Elon Dumps 42 Million More Shares of Tesla
and does other totally normal things that indicate everything is completely awesome with him. Why is he offloading so much stock? And he isn't the only one. What does it say about Tesla? (btw we recorded this before he started banning journalists on Twitter for... sharing publicly available info about his flights.) Also, Trump replies to the Tish James injunction in Florida, and NBC files its answer to the Devin Nunes v Rachel Maddow suit! Links: Trump reply in Tish James suit, NBC Answer in Nunes/Maddow defamation case, SEC Form 4s - November 4, 2022, November 7, November 8, December 12-14, original CMO Dearie
16-12-2022 • 56 minuten, 39 seconden
OA662: The Nothingburger Twitter Files
It's another Lizisode! Liz Dye takes us through the very insidious lying nonsense that is the Twitter files. It's infuriating.
15-12-2022 • 45 minuten, 3 seconden
OA661: Monster Cable and the Best CnD Response Ever
Once upon a time, there was a company that sold incredibly overpriced cables... When that well went dry, they moved onto patent trolling. This is the story of when they attempted to patent troll the wrong guy... Links: Monster Cable - Wikipedia, Monster Cables, Monster Ripoff: 80% Markups – Consumerist, Do Coat Hangers Sound As Good Monster Cables? – Consumerist, HDMI cable scam used to fool in-store customers? | Engadget, Monster "HDMI Difference" scam still kickin' in Fry's Electronics | Engadget, Monster patent C&D, exhibits, Blue Jeans Cable response, Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable | Audioholics
13-12-2022 • 54 minuten, 20 seconden
OA660: Alex Jones... Declares... (personal) BANKRUPTCYYYYYY
We here at Opening Arguments enjoy documenting just how many different ways Alex Jones is financially f@cked. He added another bankruptcy to his collection, and like the previous ones, this one is likely part of a devious plan to get out of paying people stuff. Will it work? Links: Derkach Charged with Fraud and Money Laundering, Jones Bankruptcy, personal bankruptcy and motion
12-12-2022 • 44 minuten, 8 seconden
OA659: Trump Is Ffffffffffbleeped
So many good news episodes lately! The Trump Org found guilty on like a lot of counts, No 11th circuit appeal on the special master bullsh, more classified docs found, Jack Smith issues subpoenas... so much! in the first segment we talk about the likely disaster that is Moore v. Harper, but Andrew thinks oral arguments suggested a less bad outcome. Get the breakdown! Links: Matt Taibbi Twitter thread, Moore v. Harper, Trump org convicted, New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 155.40, PEN § 175.35, PEN § 175.10, Trump Org Guilty Of Criminal Tax Fraud, Trump lawyers found items with classified markings in his storage unit, Bobb certification
9-12-2022 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 56 seconden
NO AD RE-POST OA658: Judge Slams Kari Lake Legal Team for "false, misleading, and unsupported" Claims
Hey folks, The auto ad tehcnology is what makes the 4 episode a week schedule possible. However, it's also something that I have no control over. There seems to be some issue on the server side. The episode was cut off at the place where the second ad slot was supposed to go. There is absolutely nothing I can do beyond submitting a support ticket, which I have. Apologies for this. As always, the patron feed has no ads and therefore this episode was obviously fine over there. In the meantime, I'm just releasing it without ads so that people can still listen. We'll give up ad revenue for this one, no big deal! Thanks for your understanding and sorry for the inconvenience! Thomas.
8-12-2022 • 38 minuten, 27 seconden
OA658: Judge Slams Kari Lake Legal Team for "false, misleading, and unsupported" Claims
Yikes... We're once again joined by the great Liz Dye! This time, she's here to breakdown the absolute shellacking Dershowitz and co. recieved for being horrible lying pieces of sh!t and terrible lawyers. They're not sending their best!
8-12-2022 • 38 minuten, 27 seconden
OA657: Devin Nunes Defamation Suit Against Rachel Maddow Survives Motion to Dismiss. HOW!?
Everyone's favorite 1st Amendment understander Devin Nunes has sued cow after twitter cow and it obviously has all gone nowhere. BUT, his defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow has survived a motion to dismiss... So... HOW?!?! Is this a big deal? What happened? Did Maddow f up? Andrew T's got the full breakdown! Links: Nunes complaint, Devin Nunes’ Cow Account Won’t Quit, Andrii Derkach Wikipedia
6-12-2022 • 57 minuten, 18 seconden
OA656: Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Sedition!
Wow it's almost like there really was an armed coup on January 6th on our nation's Capital. Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Megs have been found guilty of sedition. But when it comes to their sentencing... it's actually not very clear how much time they will do. That's because there really isn't much precedent for this. Andrew has the breakdown! Before that, though, we have a follow-up on the music episode. We share further thoughts inspired by some of the response we got. And we got a lot... Links: 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy, 18 U.S. Code § 3553 - Imposition of a sentence, Sentencing_Table.pdf, trump-lawyers-sanctioned.pdf, Trump sanctions stayed?
5-12-2022 • 46 minuten, 16 seconden
OA655: 11th Circuit Slaps Down Judge Cannon!
It's a bit of a good news show! The Respect for Marriage Act has passed the Senate! Justice Alito was ratted out by a Rev. Schenck. And, the 11th Circuit delivered a whopper of a decision putting an end to the Judge Cannon Naro Lago nonsense. Links: Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404) passes, 42 U.S. Code § 416 - Determination of Family Status, NY Times Schenck-Alito story, Former Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach, response from Supreme Court Legal Office, Gift Regulations (Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2C, Ch. 6), Trump motion for disclosure, Media motion for access
2-12-2022 • 58 minuten, 24 seconden
OA654: The E. Jean Carroll Suit Has Not Gone Away. In Fact, It Just Got Much Worse For Trump
We're once again joined by the incredible Liz Dye to update us (and remind us of the backstory...) on the E. Jean Carroll suit. Or now, SUITS! She has been able to file another suit against Trump due to a new law that has been passed. It's good news for justice, bad news for Trump!
30-11-2022 • 37 minuten, 48 seconden
OA653: Disney Sued Over Frozen 2 Song - MUSIC LAW!
What happens when Thomas preps a music law episode but Andrew also preps a music law episode? You get basically 2 episodes in 1! Given that we just moved to our more frequent schedule, we definitely did not intend to create such a behemoth, but there was just too much to cover! In the first half, Andrew sketches out the legal landscape in music copyright law and it's pretty severe limitations. We analyze the Blurred Lines/Got To Give It Up lawsuit, and the Sam Smith/Tom Petty case, complete with clips! Then in the second half, we FINALLY get to the actual case at hand, which is Grigson v Lopez. Thomas takes Andrew on a bit of a musical tour discussing different elements of the songs with even more clips!
29-11-2022 • 1 uur, 54 minuten, 7 seconden
OA652: Another REALLY Bad Week for Alex Jones...
... and his terrible f*cking attorneys. You love to see it.
28-11-2022 • 56 minuten, 27 seconden
OA651: Special Counsel Jack Smith is Bad News for Trump
The fact that Garland has appointed a Special Counsel means an indictment is not coming in the very immediate future. HOWEVER, everything we know about Jack Smith tells us that this is a very serious step that is not good for Trump. Listen in and find out why! Also, the 11th Circuit AGAIN slapped down Judge Cannon's horrendous ruling. The oral arguments could have been a Law'd Great Media. Andrew brought some quotes and they are great. This is the first episode of our new format, so there is no T3BE! There will be 4 episodes next week, the two smaller ones will have the T3BE question and answer. Exciting! Links: 28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority, 28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, 28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability, Smith Appointment order, 28 CFR § 600.8 - Notification and reports by the Special Counsel, 11th-circuit-grants-stay.pdf, 11th-circuit-grants-stay.pdf, Trump still filing to Cannon, Another Eastman Loss, SCOTUS declines to intervene for Trump taxes
24-11-2022 • 1 uur, 43 seconden
OA650: If Fake Insulin Tweet Tanked Stock, Could Eli Lilly Sue?
A viral meme claims that a fake Eli Lilly tweet declaring insulin to be free tanked the stock to the tune of billions and billions. Ignoring for a moment the fact that it seems incredibly unlikely that an easily debunkable fake tweet on fake tweet day would send a bunch of investors into a frenzy, could Eli Lilly sue the tweeter? Or the Twitter? It's another Section 230 deep dive! Links: 47 U.S.C. § 230, Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group, Gonzalez v. Google LLC - SCOTUSblog, Trump 9th Cir. brief
22-11-2022 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 14 seconden
OA649: Respect for Marriage Act Advances in the Senate!
...despite Mitch McConnell voting against codifying his own marriage into law... This is good news! Is it perfect news? As usual, no! But is it still very good? Yes! Would this have happened without Democrats controlling congress even by the slimmest possible majority? NO! Also, MAJOR show announcement! And it's a good one! Then Liz Dye joins to talk about a judge slapping down the Stop Woke Act. Links: Remaining House Election Results and Race Calls - The New York Times, Bipartisan senators revive effort to pass bill codifying same-sex marriage protections, U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), 28 U.S. Code § 1738C - Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof, H. R. 8404 To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act
18-11-2022 • 59 minuten, 58 seconden
OA648: More from the Right Wing War on Free Speech
Today we get a breakdown on a few cases in which right wing goons are seeking to shut down free speech and freedom of the press in a pretty major way. AND they are finding success in our broken courts. Dershowitz v. CNN and Trump v. CNN. It also gives Andrew a chance to fawn over the Onion Amicus Brief that so many of you requested us to go over! Links: Dersh v CNN motion for summary judgment, Novak v. City of Parma, Novak v. City of Parma, 33 F.4th 296 6th circuit opinion, Novak cert petition, Onion's amicus brief
15-11-2022 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 33 seconden
OA647: Senate AND House Both Very Much In Play for Democrats!
It's a good news show! Of course you know by now that Democrats over-performed in the midterms. So it's time for Andrew to take a bit of a victory lap and discuss what happened, what races are still left to be called, how the balance of power might change, and what that will mean for Democrats and, you know, the future of our democracy!
11-11-2022 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 58 seconden
OA646: A Comprehensive Guide to Watching the Midterms
Andrew has done exhaustive research on all the key midterm elections to deliver to you a definitive guide on what to look for on election night. How soon will we know if things are good? Or if they are terrible? Which election outcomes should we be surprised about and which should be completely not surprising? Find out! Also, patrons gain access to Andrew's entier notes on this one, which you may want because there is a lot here!
8-11-2022 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 38 seconden
OA645: We Badly Underestimated Just How Terrible Elon Musk Is At Business
Hooooo boy. Ok, Elon Musk officially owns Twitter. Does that mean a big "Andrew was wrong?" Well.... kinda but it's complicated. We really just did not fathom how irrational Elon is. His wealth has taken a perhaps unprecedented hit as a result of this terrible deal. Listen for the details! Then, Liz Dye joins us for an update on Jan 6! Links: Shareholder vote twitter, How Elon Musk financed his $44bn Twitter takeover, SC 13D, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, SEC form 4 Elon, SEC filing AMENDMENT NO. 12 to SCHEDULE 13D, Banks prepare to hold $12.7bn Twitter debt on books until early 2023, U.S. exploring whether it has authority to review Musk’s Twitter deal - The Washington Post, Tesla latest 10-Q, Eastman 9th cir brief, Liz Dye Trump coverage
4-11-2022 • 1 uur, 11 minuten
OA644: Andrew Seidel Is Here! But NOT To Yell About a New SCOTUS Disaster!
Just wanted to clarify right off the bat in case the very sight of Seidel's name on our feed might send you into a panic that some fresh church/state separation obliterating hell was dealt to us by the court. That hasn't happened at LEAST in the last few days. No, Andrew Seidel joins us to talk about his brilliant new book, American Crusade!
1-11-2022 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 14 seconden
Whoops! Here's OA643 T3BE
Sorry things are a bit hectic with me being in Manchester for QED. Here is the t3be featuring Andrew Seidel!
28-10-2022 • 7 minuten, 47 seconden
OA643: Magnus Carlsen Accused Hans Niemann of Cheating at Chess. The Chess World Exploded. Now Hans Has Sued
This wild story has been on my radar for a while, but now that there's a lawsuit involved, I've convinced Andrew to give us a breakdown! But Andrew doesn't just take us through the lawsuit. We go through the accusations, and what it might take to try to prove a low frequency event to a jury. Along the way, there's a poker cheating accusation scandal as well!
28-10-2022 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 1 seconde
OA642: Discount Mueller Probe Ends In Complete Failure for Republicans
But who will investigate the investigators? John Durham, as it turns out. And what will he find? F*ck all. Trump tried to have his own Mueller Probe to get to the bottom of all the deep state corruption that must have led to the Russia Investigation only to find that there wasn't any of that. But the whole affair was a massive corruption of justice that has not been covered enough. Get the full OA breakdown! Links: Judiciary Committee Releases Transcripts of Interviews Conducted During Oversight of Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, Mueller Report, 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, 52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals, FISA Warrant Application for Carter Page, Durham probe: Trump team says Americans should be 'waiting for the next shoe to drop', Durham says Steele dossier source lied. But the FBI long valued him, Review of Four FISA Applications, Igor Danchenko Indictment
25-10-2022 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 48 seconden
OA641: Massive Smocking Gun in Newly Revealed Eastman Docs!
Big news! The smockingest of smocking guns was revealed by a judge who was so alarmed he had to share it with us! Get the full breakdown as to why this is final nail in the case against Trump. In the first segment, we talk about Republicans efforts to undermine student loan forgiveness. Since, you know, they can just be evil and someone that's ok and they're still going to win the midterms. Then a quick wildcard on Trump being subpoenaed by the Jan 6 committee. Links: Student Loan forgiveness, SC challenge on the shadow docket, Eastman phone, Eastman emails, 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, Trump subpoena, OLC memo, 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers
21-10-2022 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 46 seconden
OA640: Remunerations Are Speechful, My Friend
Today we bring you another SCOTUS deep dive involving campaign finance. Money is speech, and people with a crapload of money just deserve to speak way more than us pleebs and that's a great thing that has fantastic results in our political system and I for one welcome our monopoly man overlords.
18-10-2022 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 3 seconden
OA639: Alex Jones Owes a Literal Billion Dollars
YASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Alex Jones owes Sandy Hook victims' families... so much money. So, so much. But should we be worried that it will get appealed or reduced or some legal shenanigans will happen? Find out! Then, Andrew breaks down an interesting False Advertising case making waves. Should companies have to be honest about where their products are produced? Or is it ok to engage in a little puffery? Links: Alex Jones Case: How the Jury Divided Nearly $1 Billion in Damages, Peacock v Pabst
14-10-2022 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 55 seconden
OA638: Citizens United, Part 2
Make sure you listened to part 1, episode 636 before you proceed! It's part 2 of the long-awaited Citizens United deep-dive. In this one, we finally get to... Citizens United... Links: McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), Citizens United, SCOTUS decision
11-10-2022 • 56 minuten, 13 seconden
OA637: Trump's Appeal Is On Clarence Thomas's Desk, But That's Ok
I mean it isn't really ok that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court, and he definitely should recuse himself from any of this (he won't), HOWEVER, there is no need to freak out about this particular thing. Andrew has the breakdown. Plus, Ken Paxton avoided a deposition... until he didn't. Because he's an idiot. And finally, is Elon Musk going to buy Twitter? And therefore was Andrew wrong? Well.... no. Links: Fund Texas Choice v. Paxton, DOJ motion 11th circuit, Trump opposition, Trump asks SC for stay, why Justice Thomas has the decision, Elon Musk letter, Trump v CNN, The Onion's Amicus Brief
7-10-2022 • 59 minuten, 59 seconden
OA636: Finally, a Deep-Dive on Citizens United!
Look it seems impossible, but someone Andrew insists that we've never done a deep-dive on Citizens United! It's obviously one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, but do you know the details of just HOW terrible it was? Listener Thomas S. certainly didn't. So listen in and be dumbfounded at how tf we got here. Links: Wealth Inequality in the U.S. by Household Type, Has Wealth Inequality in America Changed over Time, Trends in U.S. income and wealth inequality, Unequal gains: American growth and inequality since 1700, founding fathers wealth inequality, United States v. Int’l Union United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), 352 U.S. 567 (1957)
4-10-2022 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 17 seconden
OA635: Trump Gets His Special Master, Immediately Regrets It
You can't quite call it f around and find out, since Judge Cannon has bent over backwards and around and through the 4th dimension and back in time for Trump. But Trump got his hand picked Special Master and quickly found out... he's just a Reagan Republican. Not a Qanon shaman. Trump has been caught it 11 different traps. OR WOULD HAVE BEEN except for the absolutely Cannon ball that dropped right after we recorded. Links: Lunn v. Commonwealth (2017), Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387 (2012), 18 U.S. Code Chapter 77 - PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, “A-M-P” Model, Justice Manual, the appointment order, order following partial stay, case management order, motion to stay, revised filing, Trump opposition to Dearie’s CMO, Rule 53. Masters, 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, DOJ;s reply, Trump opposition to extension of time
30-9-2022 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 7 seconden
OA634: Wizards of the Coast vs. Transphobic Racists
Some transphobic and racist a$$holes stole a DnD-like game from Wizards of the Coast and tried to use it for their own racist transphobic purposes with a really stupid "one weird trick." They got busted and dueling lawsuits followed. Andrew has the breakdown! Links: complaint against wizards, answer and counterclaim, TSR Online Store, Wizards of the Coast files lawsuit against TSR LLC, Schuh affidavit, Rainwater affidavit
27-9-2022 • 59 minuten, 21 seconden
OA633: Why Adnan Was Released
No doubt you've heard the huge news – Adnan Syed has been released. So what happened? Is there really new evidence? New suspects? Does this mean he didn't actually kill Hae? Find out! Then, big news in the Nara-Lago case! We recorded a breakdown before the 11th Circuit granted DoJ's appeal, and then Andrew was able to record a follow up after! So, tons of stuff in today's show! Links: Other Postconviction Review, OA107: Adnan Syed Obviously Did It, State v. Syed 2019, Motion to vacate, DOJ Trump reply
23-9-2022 • 1 uur, 27 minuten, 14 seconden
OA632: Alex Jones's Lawyers Still Don't Know WTF They're Doing
Despicable a**hole Alex Jones is getting properly destroyed in court once again. You might be thinking, what is it Groundhog Day? But no, this is not the Texas trial in which he got suitably destroyed. This is yet another trial over his disgusting lies about Sandy Hook. This one is being tried in Connecticut, which you may recognize as the state where Sandy Hook happened. If you thought his lawyers botched the last one, wait until you hear some clips from this one! Presented brilliantly by Ace Associate Morgan Stringer!
20-9-2022 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 34 seconden
OA631: Updates on Trump Treason!
Listen as local attorney P. Andrew Torrez attempts to beat the Guinness World Record for most bullet points covered in an OA episode! From candid golf shots, to mystery DC tarmac photos, to subpoenas and sh*t rulings by a sh*t judge, this week brings 8 Trump Treason items to update you on! And of course, plenty mini-dives on the way! Links: NY Attorney General May Sue Trump, Eastman Emails, Mark Meadows complied with DOJ subpoena, Save America PAC FEC disclosure, About – Conservative Partnership Institute, Trump Makes Conveniently Timed Donation To Mark Meadows's Employer, Reinhart Mar-a-Lago less redacted affidavit, DOJ reply in support of relief
16-9-2022 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 31 seconden
OA630: Court Says Employers Can Deny Even More Healthcare Because... Religion
Reason number a billion why we need to prevent right wing Christian Nationalists from ever having any power at all in this country – Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra. Under Republican rule, if I have a 'sincerely held belief' that bats are birds, no one is allowed to question that or tell me I'm wrong, and I can refuse to pay for any healthcare I want if I can link it to my stupid belief. Listen as Andrew breaks down this horrible f*cking decision. Also, we some more updates on the DoJ's appeal to the 11th circuit. Links: Appeal to 11th Cir docketed, DOJ motion for stay pending appeal, Judge Cannon ordered Trump response, Trump Cannon media brief, Special master joint brief, 42 U.S. Code § 300gg - Fair health insurance premiums
13-9-2022 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 18 seconden
OA629: Hack Judge Hands Trump a Win. What Comes Next?
The napkin with crayon scribbling on it that Trump's lawyers submitted was somehow... granted? by Judge Cannon, whom we now know to be a complete MAGA hack. This ruling was such an embarrassment to the rule of law that even Republican judges will recognize it. So what comes next? What will an appeal look like? Also Andrew covers the brilliant strategy undertaken by DoJ lawyers that will give them an advantage in this next step. Before that, more on the Alaska ranked choice election, and can states charge income tax on student loan forgiveness? Links: Kel McClanahan article, 28 U.S. Code § 1292 - Interlocutory decisions, Hoosiers will be taxed hundreds of dollars on student loan forgiveness, AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021, 26 U.S. Code § 108 - Income from discharge of indebtedness, 42 U.S. Code § 300gg - Fair health insurance premiums
9-9-2022 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 29 seconden
OA628: Sarah Palin LOSES! A Win for Ranked Choice?
It's a situation as confusing as it is incredible – Sarah Palin, who won an open primary for the AK House Seat, has LOST. The Democrat, Mary Peltola, despite coming in LAST in the primary, has WON! How did this happen? Ranked choice voting! But is that good? Does this make sense? Imagine if this were the Democratic equivalent, would we be happy? Or would it not happen? Then, Better Call Saul is being sued by a tax company that is virtually identical to the dirtbag one portrayed in the show. Is the lawsuit credible? Links: Alaska's Better Elections Initiative, Al Gross for Congress, JTH Tax, LLC d/b/a Liberty Tax Service v. AMC Networks
6-9-2022 • 59 minuten, 29 seconden
Sneak Peak! AMERICAN SCANDAL: Snowden
The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, took a large toll on America’s sense of security. In the dawn of this new era, Congress moved to take swift action by creating the Patriot Act. The stated goal was to identify and strike back against terrorists, but in practice, the law had much wider-reaching effects. But everything changed in 2013 when an intelligence contractor named Edward Snowden decided to expose the truth, leaking more classified documents than any whistleblower in American history. This four-part series from American Scandal follows Edward Snowden’s transformation, from a respected intelligence officer, to the most wanted whistleblower in the world. This is just a preview of Edward Snowden from American Scandal, but you can listen to the rest of this episode at wondery.fm/AS_OpeningArguments
5-9-2022 • 5 minuten, 49 seconden
OA627: How To Convict Donald Trump
The more we learn, the worse it gets for Trump. It's almost like he's a pathological narcissist without any regard for laws. Today Andrew breaks down two ways to convict Trump, using two different provisions of the law. Links: motion opposing special master, DOJ exhibits, United States v. Gonzalez, 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, Proving Intent at Mar-a-Lago, The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis - WSJ, 44 U.S. Code § 2201, 44 U.S. Code § 2202 - Ownership of Presidential records, 44 U.S. Code § 2203 - Management and custody of Presidential records, 44 U.S. Code § 2205 - Exceptions to restricted access, 44 U.S. Code § 2204 - Restrictions on access to Presidential records
2-9-2022 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 22 seconden
OA626: F(boi)POTUS Is So Porked
For real, things are not going well for Trump. We get that he's Teflon Don, but even those teflon pans get messed up if you scratch them with a knife or if they steal a bunch of top secret documents. Listen and enjoy as Andrew details the many ways Trump is having a very bad law thingy. Links: Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records, Redacted warrant affidavit, Trump's terrible motion, Cover sheet, rule 41g, Judge Slapdown, trump response, "Anomalous" Federal Jurisdiction, Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders, letter from archives, Navarro reply brief
30-8-2022 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 59 seconden
OA625: Student Loan Forgiveness!
Biden not only kept his campaign promise, but expanded on it! Andrew breaks down the history of the student loan debt problem and what Biden's plan is. It's good news!
26-8-2022 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 40 seconden
OA624: Good News Show! Williams v. Kincaid Sets a Good Precedent for Trans Rights
Perhaps we can have good things? Andrew breaks down Williams v. Kincaid, a 4th Circuit case that actually sets a positive precedent for trans rights! After that, we interview Jalessah Jackson, Executive Director of ARC Southeast - one of the abortion funds that OA listeners raised an incredible amount of money for! Links: 42 U.S. Code Chapter 126 ADA, 42 U.S. Code § 12211 - Definitions exception
23-8-2022 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 54 seconden
OA623: This Week in High Treason
There's still SO much to talk about in the Mar-a-Lago Treason Trove! Lots of updates on that, plus the Weiselberg plea, Trump passports, and more! We also squeeze in a wildcard on Alex Jones's loser lawyers. Links: The Atlantic article that is wrong, 42 U.S. Code § 2274 - Communication of Restricted Data, Jonathan Toebbe case, 10 CFR Part 1045 -- Nuclear Classification and Declassification, Classification of Nuclear Weapons-Related Information, Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, Trump’s passports returned, Norm Pattis Sanctions order, Reynal order, Pattis "moved to dismiss", Alex-Jones-Kyng-S.-Lee-Affidavit
19-8-2022 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 57 seconden
OA622: Will Alex Jones' Damages Be Capped by Texas Law?
The unfortunate answer is... yes. BUT. There may be a one weird trick that actually could sidestep this! Listen in for the breakdown and why there is a sliver of hope on this really terrible nonsense. After that, we talk about our Matthew Hoh interview and the response we have gotten. Links: Texas bill, More TX statutes, Texas Constitution, Hanna v. Sweeney, 78 Conn. 492, NCSBE certified GP as a political party, new Demw lawsuit
16-8-2022 • 1 uur, 32 seconden
OA621 Extra! More on Mar-a-Lago
So much breaking news, we did an extra episode for you!
13-8-2022 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 28 seconden
OA621: The FBI Goes to Mar-a-Lago! This Is Big...
If you're anything like me, you've been waiting for the Andrew breakdown of the FBI warrant service on Mar-a-Lago. Well, here it is, PLUS breaking news while we were recording! We didn't yet have the info that it might be nuclear documents, which makes everything Andrew said EVEN MORE right. Links: 18 U.S. Code § 3109, 18 U.S. Code § 3103a - Additional grounds for issuing warrant, List of attorneys who tried to steal your 2020 vote, What were FBI agents looking for in Trump's Mar-a-Lago? : NPR, Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), Basic Laws and Authorities | National Archives, The FBI Just Raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Home, Justice Dept. using grand jury to probe Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents, National Archives had to retrieve Trump White House records from Mar-a-Lago, 44 U.S. Code Chapter 22 - PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS, 44 U.S. Code § 2202, 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material, 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, “Lock Her Up” | Law Offices of P. Andrew Torrez, 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally, Jan. 6 committee tees up 20 witness transcripts for DOJ Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Who Can Be President of the United States?: Candidate Hillary Clinton and the Problem of Statutory Qualifications,’ 5(1) British Journal of American Legal Studies 95 (2016) (peer review) Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Secretary Clinton Can Relax Because Section 2071 Disqualification Does Not Apply to the Presidency: A Response to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Cause of Action (with a Short Reply from Attorney General Mukasey)’ (2015)
12-8-2022 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 18 seconden
OA620: OA Debates Green Party Candidate Matthew Hoh
Listeners will know we have been incredibly hostile to the idea of voting for or running as a third party candidate. Despite that, Matthew Hoh, Green Party candidate for Senate in NC, accepted Andrew's invitation to come on the show. So why is he running? Can we convince him it's a bad idea? Listen and find out!
This is... wow. Just wow. Jones's lawyers accidentally handed over his entire cell phone and didn't remedy it when they could have. Just staggering. Get Andrew's full breakdown of this glorious happening. Also, GOOD NEWS FROM KANSAS! The people of Kansas did a good thing. And Pat Cipollone was subpoenaed by the Justice Dept! All in all just a really good news episode. Links: Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, House Concurrent Resolution No. 5003, Justice Dept. Subpoenas Pat Cipollone, Justice Dept. Asking Witnesses About Trump, U.S. v. Nixon, Cassidy Hutchinson kept working for Donald Trump for 9 weeks, Jones video, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
5-8-2022 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 8 seconden
OA618: The Case That Could Allow Republicans to Steal 2024
In today's doom coverage, Andrew breaks down Moore v. Harper and how it is completely outrageous that the Supreme Court granted cert. It's bad. It's real bad. But guess what! It's also worse. In the first segment, we talk about the likelihood that the Secret Service texts were lost accidentally. Lots of tech people contacted us about prior coverage. Links: Cert petition, Amicus by the national Republican redistricting trust, Bush v Gore, McPherson v Blacker, Smiley v Holm, opposition brief
2-8-2022 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 5 seconden
OA617: Alex Jones' Lawyers Have No F*cking Idea What They're Doing
There was a truly amazing moment in the Alex Jones trial that we can't wait to share with you. And, it's a chance for some law talkin'! Jones' lawyers are completely inept and we should all enjoy nice things. Then, Andrew takes us through an interesting election situation in North Carolina involving the Green Party. Guess what, they still suck and are helping Republicans win! So much so that Republicans are literally fighting legal battles for Green Party candidates. Links: Rule 801, Strickland v. Washington, Matthew Hoh, NC § 163-122, NC Stat. § 163.96: create a new party, Candidates - North Carolina Green Party, Docs from state board meeting on Green Party, Matthew Hoh tweet, Republicans financed Montana Green Party
29-7-2022 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 26 seconden
OA616: The Final Jan 6 Hearing. OR IS IT?
The 8th and final(???) Jan 6. Hearing happened in prime time on Thursday. We saved our Monday deep dive for it! As usual, Andrew breaks it down with clips! Also, Bannon found guilty! and Jeff Clark hit with disciplinary hearings! What a great day! Links: 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers. Jeff Clarke proceedings, Opening Arguments live tweet thread, 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, Hearing video
26-7-2022 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 13 seconden
OA615: Rep. Jared Huffman on the Health Share Transparency Act
You may remember the ripoff scam that is Christian Health Share Ministries from such episodes as OA497: Christian Health Sharing Is a Scam and OA530: Andrew Testifies to Congress on Christian Healthshare Ministries! Well, as a direct result of Andrew's House testimony, Rep. Jared Huffman has sponsored and introduced a new bill to fight back against this scam! It's H.R.8324 - Health Share Transparency Act of 2022. Rep. Huffman is also a co-founder of the Congressional Freethought Caucus! He joins us today to explain the bill. Before that, I grill Andrew on the Secret Service deleted texts, with such questions as "what the f?" and "how the h?" There's a lot we can't know yet, but Andrew explains what we do know. Finally, we go through the first gun control legislation passed in two decades. It's good!
22-7-2022 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 18 seconden
OA614: The FEC Is Corrupt and Broken. Biden Has Inexplicably Neglected to Fix It.
If you or anyone you know is President Biden, please dear god listen to this episode and then get the word out. The FEC has been broken and corrupted by Trump appointees. Biden could have easily done something about it from day 1 of his administration and he just... hasn't. Listen to the full story and see example #9,576 of why Trump and Republicans can never be trusted in office. In the first segment, we get a big update on the Musk Twitter deal. Andrew nailed another one! Links: 52 US Code § 30106 - FEC, 52 US Code § 30107 - Powers of Commission, 52 US Code § 30108 - Advisory opinions, 52 US Code § 30104 - Reporting requirements, Hillary campaign FEC, FEC ruling, conciliation
19-7-2022 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 49 seconden
OA613: Cipollone Prediction: Bullseye. Here's the Next Potential Jan 6 Domino to Fall
We haven't gotten a chance to pat Andrew on the back enough for nailing the Cipollone prediction, so let's do so! Tuesday was the first hearing since that bombshell news, and it featured a little bit of Cipollone testimony, but also teased much more to come. Andrew takes us through the hearing, with some clips. And, he has another prediction! Given his track record, we'd better take note! Links: Meadows docs, Cleta Mitchell docs
15-7-2022 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 52 seconden
OA612: The Supreme Court – How Did We Get Here?
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, Andrew gave a brilliant talk to the Houston Oasis group on how we got here and what we can do. Note in the QnA section, the questions were not recorded, sorry. They are reasonably easy to figure out with context clues though! Check out his slides here.
12-7-2022 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 46 seconden
OA611: Cipollone to Testify! Andrew Called It! Here's What To Expect.
Today's episode pays off a bet Andrew made last month that the January 6 Committee would eventually secure the testimony of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Find out why that's such a big deal! In addition to explaining how the J6 Committee came to secure Pets of Belonging's testimony, Andrew answers your questions regarding whether this is some kind of elaborate con (No), how Cipollone's answers are likely to interact with executive and attorney-client privilege (frequently), and the likelihood that he will help round out the successful case for prosecuting Donald Trump for crimes in connection with the 1/6 Insurrection (EXTREMELY!). It's a big deal! After the main breakdown, we share a thoughtful and informative letter from a listener who helps put the Supreme Court's recent (atrocious) decision in Carson v. Makin (that we broke down in Episode 608) permitting direct government aid to expressly religious schools into a fuller context. It's an Andrew Was Wrong (About Rural Maine) and an important object lesson that you can never trust the fact section in a SCOTUS case involving religion these days. Links: The brilliant and hilarious Merrill Markoe captured the live-captioning of Pat Cipollone's name as Patsy Baloney (and others) on Twitter. For the background for the crime-fraud exception, check out Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. You can check out the Senate Judiciary testimony of Jeff Rosen as well as Richard Donohue for all sorts of new goodies, some of which we covered on the show! Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Carson v. Makin., which we previously broke down in Episode 608 with Andrew Seidel. Finally, secret link! CLICK HERE to read the Kurt Olsen draft complaint for the DOJ, which we discovered in all its madness after the end of the record. Remember you can still donate to the Opening Arguments Foundation at OAfund.org!
8-7-2022 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 42 seconden
OA610: Elon's Twitter Deal Was a Complete Blunder. It's Not Happening.
As Andrew flagged for us before any other sources (that I saw), Elon Musk's deal to buy Twitter was never a guarantee. Well, now it's moved from not a guarantee to very unlikely. Today, we look at what happened. Also, there are two interesting possibilities being debated online. For one, that he'll be able to get out of it because of the "bots," and on the other side, that he may be forced to buy Twitter by a judge. Are either of these possible or even likely? Find out! In the first segment, we talk about our amazingly successful fundraiser ($160,000+ raised!) and what's going on in Texas right now. hint: it's not good. Links: Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe, 1925 Texas abortion law, ACLU TRO, Ken Paxton Writ of Mandamus, TX supreme court says no, Twitter agreement 4/22, Twitter 10-Q 3/31/22, Musk SEC letter, IN RE IBP INC. v. TYSON FOODS INC
5-7-2022 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 8 seconden
OA609: Surprise Jan. 6 Hearing – Bombshells Within Smocking Guns Within More Bombshells
Wow. What a hearing! BUT FIRST!!! We have an incredibly exciting announcement which we spend the first 11 minutes talking about! Feel free to skip it if you would like to be dead to us, it's completely up to you. But we worked our butts off to get you this episode an entire day early to give you a little more heads up that you need to... Join us Friday for the Aiding and Abetting Abortion fundraiser, presented by our friends, Cognitive Dissonance! The event starts at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern, but our time slot is 6:30! Here's the link to sit there and wait for it to start streaming! To donate, head to OAfund.org! And after all that, we still have an amazing breakdown of the hearing, and lordy there are tapes!
30-6-2022 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 10 seconden
OA608: Forget Church-State Separation, SCOTUS Mandates Christian Favoritism
The hits just keep on coming with this disgraceful, illegitimate Supreme Court. Andrew Seidel joins us to break down Carson v. Makin, and explains why precedent is meaningless, and the only thing that matters to this court when it comes to Church/State cases is: Christians win. Then, Ace Associate Morgan Stringer joins us to explain why the entire internet is wrong about Biden "banning Juuls and cigarettes."
28-6-2022 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 36 seconden
OA607: Will There Be Justice for Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman? and Bye Bye Miranda Rights!
If you watched Tuesday's hearing, you saw the heartbreaking story of how these two amazing women were viciously slandered by Rudy Giuliani and other members of the big lie insurrectionists. Their lives were absolutely turned upside down by complete racist fabrications. Do they have recourse? What will happen? Then, Andrew breaks down the complete breakdown of the legal fabric of our society. Say goodbye to any meaningful sense in which you have the right to remain silent! The Supreme Court has gutted Miranda rights, because why the f not, apparently. Oh but they make up for it by eroding states' ability to restrict open carry of guns. So that's cool. Links: environmental lawyer quote, Freeman and Moss v Giuliani, Giuliani idiot motion to dismiss, Maryland Code, Public Safety § 5-306, Vega v. Tekoh, 42 US Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
24-6-2022 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 54 seconden
OA606: How Egbert v. Boule Portends Shocking US Fascism – with Matt Cameron
You may have recently seen people posting about a disturbing Supreme Court decision (what else is new) with images of how much of the US is within 100 miles of a border, and how federal agents can basically get away with anything in most of the country. What was that about? Was it overblown? Welp. Attorney Matt Cameron is here to tell us no, actually. It was underblown, if anything. Not blown enough. Listen for the full breakdown, including classic Bivens. Before that, Andrew does a quick refresher on pocket pardons and why they... are not a thing.
21-6-2022 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 41 seconden
OA605: GEICO to Pay $5.2m for Car Sex?! and MORE Jan 6 Bombshells!
Today is two entire show's worth of things somehow crammed into one! First, Jan 6 hearing #3 is in the books. Some amazing bombshells! Also, I grill Andrew on intent and how it could possibly be that we have to prove what Trump had going on in his dumb brain. It's an extended cross examination but hopefully it will provide more understanding! THEN, you've likely seen the headlines: GEICO has to pay $5.2m for car sex? Really? Well, we might have another McDonald's coffee lawsuit on our hands! Get the break down! Links: Geico ordered to pay $5.2 million for STD in a car, RMCo 537.065, GEICO opinion
17-6-2022 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 6 seconden
OA604: The Jan 6 Hearings
Surprise! An early episode for everyone! Here's why: the first Jan 6 hearing is in the books. The next one is Monday AM. Listen for Andrew's breakdown of hearing 1, and what to look for in hearing 2!
12-6-2022 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 5 seconden
OA603: California Court Rules That... Bees are Fish?
Given that the Jan 6 hearing is AFTER we record, we're doing a little switcheroo! Today is a Tuesday-esque deep dive! What's with this California court ruling that bees are fish? Is Elon Musk right to mock it? Find out all about it and how it relates to when Reagan designated ketchup as a vegetable! Links: Reagan cuts eat into school lunches - CSMonitor.com, 46 CFR 44452, California Endangered Species Act, § 2070, State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, Forestry Ass’n v. Fish & Game Commission
10-6-2022 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 58 seconden
OA602: New Eastman Docs Set Stage for Jan 6 Hearings
About a week ago, there was yet another smoking gun document trove delivered to us by the Jan. 6 Committee in relation to the Eastman trial. Andrew gives us the full breakdown, including a couple new insurrectionist characters we haven't yet been introduced to. All of this, plus the first primetime Jan 6. Committee hearing is this Thursday! Listen and be primed for what's coming.
7-6-2022 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 13 seconden
OA601: SCOTUS Ruling Guarantees More Innocent Will Be Put to Death
The way you know the Supreme Court is ruining the law in this country is if their lips are moving. Well, this time they've decided that a 10 year old precedent is already too old for them, and that if you were given a terrible lawyer by the state, you should have thought of that before you decided to be poor. Shinn v. Ramirez Also, check out Thomas's new podcast Dear Old Dads, with Eli Bosnick and Tom Curry!
3-6-2022 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 57 seconden
OA600: Why Police Don't Have To Do Their Jobs
In the wake of the pathetic police response to the Uvalde shooting, you have likely come across posts and memes talking about how police don't actually have any obligation to protect you or really do anything. Is this true or is it overblown internet leftist hyperbole? Well, it's true, and it's infuriating. Andrew breaks down the case in question. THEN! A special episode 600 celebration!!! We asked our patrons what terms/phrases/references/inside jokes they wanted us to explain, and we've got a fun list of 20! It's a fun stroll down memory lane as we talk the oranges of motions in lemonade, clownhorning, Konrad Michaels, and more! Links: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
31-5-2022 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 6 seconden
OA599: Our Massive Gun Problem – What Can We Do?
Another horrific mass shooting has us all asking WTF can we actually do about this? There is plenty of reason for pessimism, but Opening Arguments is here to break down what might realistically be done. This is part 1, focusing on why gun companies are immune from civil actions and what we should do about that. Part 2 will be about the police response. In the first segment, we give an update on Elon Musk. There was a filing that went virtually unnoticed but sheds more light on the Twitter situation. Links: Musk SEC filing, letter to himself, 15 US Code § 7902, Definition: qualified civil liability action from 15 USC § 7903, Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of US Mass Shootings
27-5-2022 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 50 seconden
OA598: No, Tribal Sovereignty Will Not Save Abortion Access
Some folks on the internet have been trying to "one weird trick" our way to saving Roe by claiming that tribal sovereignty could help ensure abortion access. Well, not only is this wrong, it's offensively wrong. OA brings you the deep-dive on Indian Law (yes, that's what it's called...) with a refresher on McGirt v. Oklahoma, and why none of that equals an instant abortion rights fix. After that, a wildcard question – now that Roe is being overturned, does that mean justices committed perjury in their confirmation hearings? Links: McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18 US Code § 1153 - Offenses committed within Indian country, The Hyde Amendment, Indigenous Women's Reproductive Rights: The Indian Health Service and Its Inconsistent Application of the Hyde Amendment
24-5-2022 • 58 minuten, 9 seconden
OA597: 5th Circuit Tells SCOTUS Hold My Beer
The 5th Circuit has never been in the top 10 circuits in terms of not being insane, but now it has gone even more off the rails. Andrew takes us through the deep dive on a terrible decision that will decimate the SEC's ability to do anything, and why the logic will be applied elsewhere. Before that, a quick update on how much Elon Musk sucks and has completely blown it with the Twitter deal. And a quick word on primaries. Links: Twitter says it will 'enforce' Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition deal, 28Patriot” v. SEC, 15 US Code § 78u–2 - Civil remedies in administrative proceedings, Jellum & Tincher, “The Shadow of Free Enterprise”, Are the SEC's Administrative Law Judges Biased? An Empirical Investigation, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 1365 (2018), Summary of Administrative Law Judge Responsibilities
20-5-2022 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 42 seconden
OA596: Depp v. Heard, with Morgan Stringer
By popular demand, we old out of touch guys have invited Ace Associate and Poplaw Expert Morgan Stringer on to explain to us just what in the h is happening in the Depp v. Heard lawsuit. Who is suing whom and for what? Can we take what we're seeing on TikTok at face value? Also who is Amber Heard? All these answers and more(gan)!
17-5-2022 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 10 seconden
OA595: Shareholders Sue Twitter, Alleged Facts Jeopardize Musk Deal
According to a lawsuit filed by some shareholders, Twitter may have failed to disclose important information about the Musk deal, and it might be Musk's doing! Get the full breakdown on this very interesting lawsuit that isn't getting much coverage elsewhere! Also, a Connecticut Bill paves the way for how other states might fight against abortion restrictions. Something to fight for in your state! Also, why Andrew is definitely right about Clarence Thomas. Links: Code of Conduct for US Judges, 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, WHPA fails, CT bill, Orlando Police Pension Fund v Twitter, 8 Del. Code § 203, disclosure in merger agreement
13-5-2022 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 34 seconden
OA594: Impeach Clarence Thomas
It's a breakdown I've been begging Andrew to do for months and it's finally here! The case for why the House should start impeachment proceedings for Clarence Thomas. Links: Ginni's texts, Trump v. Thompson, Ginni apologized to clerks, Justice Samuel Chase - Impeachment, How Ginni Thomas jockeyed for influence in Trump's orbit
10-5-2022 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 29 seconden
OA593: Roe Was Never About a 'Right to Abortion'
It is absurd to say "point to where in the Constitution it says you have a right to an abortion." Legally speaking, there's something a lot deeper and more basic going on. As we all already know, this leaked decision makes a mockery of the law. Andrew has some further deep-diving for us on how the court, a mere 20 years ago, ruled in the opposite direction on similar legal questions. Many of the same Justices were a part of that ruling. Listen and learn! Links: Court press release, Draft Dobbs opinion, Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe | Guttmacher Institute, Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, 87(R) SB 8, Arkansas SB 149 (2019), Lawrence v. Texas, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977)
6-5-2022 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 37 seconden
Emergency Episode - Roe to be Overturned
Just stunning. Despite OA warning you about this for years, it still is, and should be, utterly shocking to see in print. Andrew has somehow already read the opinion and has a preliminary breakdown. This is an emergency, unfiltered, unedited, uncensored episode.
3-5-2022 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 46 seconden
OA592: NYT's 'The Daily' Botches SCOTUS Case Coverage
Andrew Seidel joins us to commiserate over both how much the Supreme Court is butchering State-Church Separation, and also how irresponsibly The Daily podcast covered the case involved. The NYT decided to devote an entire episode to a man who a Bush-appointed federal judge called out for being dishonest in his presentation of facts. Please yell at them with us, because this is garbage and we should expect better.
3-5-2022 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 15 seconden
OA591: Musk Buys Twitter, Part 2!
We continue the fascinating deep-dive into the NOT FINAL deal for Musk to buy Twitter. This part goes more into the financing and highlights even more ways the deal might not go through. Then, we've got some updates in key stories! Trump has been held in contempt! And briefs for the MTG case are due today. Links: Musk Loses $32 Billion in Tesla Wealth, proxy statement (shareholders vote), TrumpContemptOrder4_26_22
29-4-2022 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 3 seconden
OA590: Musk Buys Twitter. The Deal Is Done. Or Is It?
The answer may surprise you! When it was announced that Elon Musk bought Twitter, I had a billion and one questions for Andrew about it. Andrew being Andrew, he commenced deep-diving and turned up a ton of interesting info about this deal and the legality around deals like this. And to his surprise... it's FAR from a done deal! Listen in for the dive so deep that it actually will require a surprise bonus episode! This is part 1, part 2 will be out as soon as thomasly possible to edit and release it! Links: Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk, Elon, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, 15 US Code Chapter 2B - SECURITIES EXCHANGES, 17 CFR Part 240, 17 CFR § 243.100 - General rule regarding selective disclosure, 17 CFR § 243.101 - Definitions, Form 8-K, 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices, Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), Twitter's 8k, material agreement with Musk
29-4-2022 • 58 minuten, 14 seconden
OA589: The FL House is a Dumpster Fire. Sarah Henry Hopes to Change That!
Past OA guest Sarah Henry is running for the Florida House in the 38th district! We talk about the absolute hell that is Florida Republicans, and what she intends to do about it. Then, a breakdown of the civil contempt motion against Donald Trump for never complying with anything. Will he get those Alex Jones type contempt fines? Find out! Links: Make sure to support Sarah! Trump contempt motion, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED PETITION, AG James Files Motion to Hold Donald J. Trump in Contempt
26-4-2022 • 1 uur, 41 seconden
OA588: Wildly Ignorant Trump Judge Upends National Mask Policy
As you've no doubt already heard, a totally unqualified, Trump appointed, 34 year old Florida Judge has completely destroyed the national travel mask mandate with the stroke of a pen. Andrew breaks down how dumb the opinion is, and Thomas laments that Democratic leaders are somehow still pretending we live in a society. After that, we've got a deep-dive into bankruptcy, inspired by both Alex Jones and the Health Care Sharing Ministry Sharity. Sharity declared bankruptcy leaving 10,000 members holding the bag for $50 million in unpaid bills. Who could have possibly predicted this except oh yeah see OA497: Christian Health Sharing Is a Scam. Links: 86 Fed Reg 8025, The Opinion, 42 US Code § 264, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Sharity Leaves 10K Families with Millions in unpaid bills, Infowars Bankruptcy Petition, Infowars form 202, Jones thinks he set up a trust, 28 US Code § 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings, 28 US Code § 1452 - Removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases, CT bankruptcy removal, Sharity Plan, Objection, Summary
22-4-2022 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 6 seconden
OA587: Alex Jones Continues To Be Completely Porked
In these troubled times, we cling tightly to the small amounts of good news we get. One source of good news who keeps on giving is Alex Jones. He is so unambiguously screwed that it’s our pleasure to cover the screwage in even more depth today. This time, it’s about a few new cases against him, as well as his obviously illegal plan to try to hide his assets from the plaintiffs who absolutely deserve his money more than he does. Before that, we have some very significant news on the Jan. 6th front — very proud boy Charles Donohoe seems to be cooperating and his “reduced” sentence is still satisfyingly high. Listen for the details! Links: Donohoe plea agreement, level 27 70-87 months, statement of offense, default judgment against Jones 11/15/21, response to motion to recover the $75k, motion for extension of time, new TX fraud case, Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Heslin v Alex Jones
19-4-2022 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 6 seconden
OA586: CA Uses TX Abortion Ban Trick but for Gun Control
It's a question a lot of you posed after Texas banned abortion by completely cheating the Constitution: what if a liberal state did the same thing but for gun control? Well, CA has done exactly that. Hear the breakdown and Andrew prediction for what will happen to this bill. After that, we've got really bad news. Remember how Democrats had almost forced a level playing field nationally by gerrymandering aggressively in Maryland and New York? Well, some fair minded judges just undid that. Links: 36 QAnon candidates, QAnon supporters running for Congress, How QAnon Became Obsessed With 'Adrenochrome,', MD Redistricting injunction, revised map approved, NY order stayed in the 4th appellate division
15-4-2022 • 1 uur, 5 minuten
OA585: Is Jan 6. Justice Moving Too Slowly? with Randall Eliason
Frequent OA guest, Professor Randall Eliason recently wrote an article for the Washington Post called "Forget what you heard. The DOJ's Jan. 6 probe is moving at a good pace." So, we thought we'd have him on the show for a conversation around just that. Is justice for Jan 6 taking too long? Are prosecutors being "chicken shits?" Will Trump get away with everything?
12-4-2022 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 38 seconden
OA584: Amazon Workers Unionize!
Amazon workers in Staten Island overcame extensive union busting efforts and won a vote to unionize! This is great news, and we can only hope it has a snowball effect. Listen as Andrew breaks down the journey, the conditions that led to the effort and the disgusting lengths Amazon went to to punish the employees who started organizing. In the A segment, we get a delightful little Alex Jones update. He finally showed up for a deposition! Links: Docket, Jones moves to purge contempt, small wrinkle, NLRB order on bogus Amazon election, Smalls fired, Exhibit 13, Amazon racist comments, 29 US Code § 157 - Right of employees as to organization, 29 US Code § 158 - Unfair labor practices
8-4-2022 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 23 seconden
OA583: Republicans Creating Handmaid's Tale Hellscape
The devastating consequences of Texas HB 8 and the Supreme Court's cowardly shadow docket ruling on it are reverberating not just through Texas, but around the country. Not to be outdone, Republicans in Idaho produced a copycat bill. Andrew gives the breakdown and we discuss some truly shocking NPR coverage of how Republicans are ruining lives. But it's not all bad news! In the B segment, Andrew takes us through the Equality Florida Lawsuit, a well-argued lawsuit attempting to fight back against the Don't Say Gay Bill. Also, we're not bothering to cover Trump's idiotic flop of a lawsuit against Hillary. Links: Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, US v. Alvarez
5-4-2022 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 9 seconden
OA582: Alex Jones Is In Big Trouble
The court has nothing BUT contempt for Alex Jones. Like, half a million dollars worth of contempt. He has dodged depositions for an eternity and Thomas's new favorite judge ever has had enough of it. Get the breakdown! Links: docket, Knowledge Fight 649, Ex A and B, motion for contempt, offer of compromise, conn. gen. stat. 52-193, plaintiffs rejected, oral argument on contempt motion, court grants, motion to reconsider, court denies THAT EVENING, motion for emergency stay, appeal to cr supreme court, Puff v. Puff, eastman not appealing
1-4-2022 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 5 seconden
OA581: The Activision-Blizzard Settlement Is Happening and It Sucks
If you're a regular listener you've heard us break down the ongoing weirdness between DFEH and EEOC over the Activision-Blizzard misconduct. It's been... unprofessional, and bad for basically everyone involved. Unfortunately, it looks like the pitifully inadequate settlement that EEOC negotiated with Activision-Blizzard is going to go through. Get the details, and what if anything can still be done about it. Before that, Andrew gives us an update on Eastment. He's still slow walking the documents, but now wants early discovery? What? Get the breakdown! Links: Eastman motion for early discovery, Chapman opposition, Eastman reply brief, DFEH motion to intervene denied 12/20/21, 1/4/22 amended decree substantively the same, 1/18 DFEH objections, 3/4 employee moves to intervene, attachment C to amended decree, 3/22 motion to intervene denied, 3/22 order on PACD
29-3-2022 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 25 seconden
The Slap. The Actual Legal Implications. NO HOT TAKES
Will Smith slapped Chris Rock onstage at the Oscars. On live television. It's less than a day old and yet you've likely already been inundated with hot takes about it. BUT, we offer you zero more annoying hot takes. This podcast takes you through the actual legal implications, both criminal and civil, of an event like this. Chris Rock might not be "pressing charges," but does that matter? If he sued civilly, what would happen? Find out the actual, researched answers to these questions in a free bonus pod, just because we love you!
28-3-2022 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 34 seconden
OA580: Google Caught Pulling Privilege Shenanigans
Our main segment today is a breakdown of Google's massive scheme to keep tons of documents privileged inappropriately. It's a fun deep-dive full of bad documents! Before that, we quickly go over the disgusting attempts to discredit KBJ by Senate Republicans. And, believe it or not, a GOOD NEWS segment about Lia Thomas! Links: Hawley Refutation, Trump v Clinton, Utah HB 11, Indiana HEA 1041, Google antitrust complaint, google status report, Google's Communicate with Care, Google response
25-3-2022 • 1 uur, 16 minuten
OA579: The New Blueprint for Anti-Vax Lawsuits
After accidentally suing themselves and then re-filing, some anti-vaxers then went on to file a complaint that, I can't believe I'm saying this, is actually something we need to take seriously. It may be the new blueprint for anti-vax grift and we need to call it out. Andrew has the full breakdown! Links: complaint, Jefferson W. Gross, Davillier Law Group, LLC, 86 FR 61555, background to Biden v. Missouri / OSHA, Biden v. Missouri, Vaccine: Mandate for Health Care Settings (deadlines vary by state), Great Barrington Declaration
22-3-2022 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 13 seconden
OA578: 1/6 Prosecutors Admit Violating Suspects Rights. What Happened?
It's a CNN headline that the MAGA Media is jumping all over. Is this a vast conspiracy to persecute the "political prisoners" of 1/6? Or... is it a normal thing? Get the breakdown. ALSO - man buys Tom Brady's "final" touchdown ball for $518k. Brady unretires THE NEXT DAY. Does the man have any legal recourse against anyone? And finally, an update on John Eastman's never ending quest to not turn over his insurrectiony documents. Links: Brady auction, All About Bidding with Lelands, Prosecutors admit they violated a Capitol rioter's rights CNN, actual filing, govt response to motion to release, United States v. McLendon
18-3-2022 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 37 seconden
OA577: This Week in 'Republicans Are Horrendously Evil'
It's time to cover these disgusting 'Don't Say Gay' Bills. There's some small good news, though. None of them are actually law YET. Find out what they are about, and which ones will and won't likely become laws. Then, Andrew breaks down how one Republican sought to show how elections are fraudulent by... committing an absurd amount of election fraud. Then, because we've earned it, a nice uplifting wildcard segment! Links: Florida don't say gay bill, GA SB 613, Idaho HB 675, Missouri HB 1677, Peters Indictment, FL goon squad bill, Sidney Powell bar complaint, p 37 of Dominion's defamation lawsuit, Exhibit 6
15-3-2022 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 23 seconden
OA576: Election Laws and Lies, with Lawrence Lessig
Last week, you heard us play a few clips of John Eastman lying his ass off on Lawrence Lessig's Another Way podcast. Well, now Professor Lessig is here to give us an expert breakdown of some of the election law issues raised by team big lie. Also, how is our election system vulnerable to the next Republican attack in 2024? Links: Friday eastman pleadings, court response, Opening Arguments on Twitter live tweet thread, Ruling, 1/6 brief, Eastman memo, 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, Longer Eastman memo, Eastman reply
11-3-2022 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 58 seconden
OA575: A Swing and a Miss on Lockout Negotiations
The owners refuse to play ball and the starting date for the MLB season continues to slide. Did the players throw a big curveball into the mix? Are their demands out of left field? Not really! The ballpark figures from both sides are actually very close but the owners are playing hardball. The episode on deck may be a little inside baseball, but if you listen in I think you'll agree it's a homerun! Before all the baseball puns, we have an update on the Texas war against trans people and the war on Ukraine. Links: abbott letter, ACLU lawsuit, Ukraine ICJ, Vasani quits Ivanyan in wake of Russian invasion
8-3-2022 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 47 seconden
OA574: 1/6 Committee Brief Says Trump Guilty of Crimes!
Andrew spotted a massive, smokiest of smoking guns in a brief filed by the 1/6 Committee! This is HUGE NEWS. It is the first sign we've yet had that Trump is facing ACTUAL criminal charges! This bombshell wiped the whiteboard clean and today's episode is entirely devoted to Andrew's expert breakdown. Don't miss it! And please share! Links: Trump credits lawyer who said Kamala Harris, 55, a US citizen at birth, isn't eligible to be VP, 1/6 Committee Brief, Exhibits, 18 US Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, 18 US Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, Eastman memo, 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario, Jacob''s depo, Exhibit K, Exhibit L, Exhibit M, Exhibit N, Timeline: How the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol unfolded, Jeffrey Rosen's Dep, Richard Donoghue's dep
4-3-2022 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 47 seconden
OA573: Harvard Law Review Publishes Dubious Note on Election Law
A note in the Harvard Law Review suggests we ought to "Remove presidential elections from the Anderson-Burdick Framework." So, just what does that mean and is it a good idea? Listen in as Andrew breaks it down! Also, we've got an update in the Madison Cawthorn situation, and more Kraken sanctions updates! Links: remedial election plan ruling, Special Masters plan, another kraken loss, Judge Parker ruling, 6th Circuit appeal, Removing Presidential Elections from the Anderson-Burdick Framework - Harvard Law Review
1-3-2022 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 17 seconden
OA572.5: Biden Picks Ketanji Brown Jackson!
Emergency bonus episode! We promised a deep-dive on whoever Biden chose to replace Breyer, and here it is! Ketanji Brown Jackson is immensely accomplished. Listen as we break down what terrible arguments to expect Republicans to try against her appointment, and what some key rulings in her judicial history tell us about her jurisprudence! Links: DC cir questionnaire, Senate Written questions, Judiciary v. McGahn, Meat Inst. v. US. Dep 't of Agric, AFL-CIO v. Trump, In re Air Crash over S. Indian Ocean, 8 US Code § 1103, Make the Rd. NY v. McAleenan, Campaign for Accountability v. US. Dep 't of Just
28-2-2022 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 34 seconden
OA572: Ukraine and International Law; Gov. Abbott's Despicable Attack on Trans Kids
What does the US's disgusting history of war crimes teach us about international law? We look at the story of how the US screwed over Nicaragua and what the UN did about it. Also, we break down Gov. Abbott's gross attack on trans people. It's despicable, but what will the real life consequences be? Find out. Before that, some good news and very bad news in the efforts to hold Trump accountable for his uncountable crimes. Links: SCOTUS Feb 22 order, Eastman reply, Prosecutors Leading Trump Fraud Investigation in NY Resign, Abbott letter, Paxton letter, UN Charter, Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice, Statute of the International Court of Justice, Nicaragua v US 1986, ruling
25-2-2022 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 38 seconden
OA571: MTG DAO NGMI; and Why Palin v. NYT is Not Over
If you don't understand the first part of the title, you're not alone! There was a delightful dust up between Wizards of the Coast and something called a DAO over Magic the Gathering. It turns out you're not just allowed to profit off of other people's IP? Cryto bros were very surprised to learn this. Andrew decodes it for us. Then, we finally get a thorough breakdown of what happened in the Palin v. NYT case. You may have heard it was dismissed, but it may not be over yet! It's a weird story with a lot of twists and turns. Links: Democratic DAO Suffers Coup, mtgodao white paper, Crypto Losers Buy Copy Of Jodorowsky's Dune, Play Themselves, mtgodao twitter, 17 US Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, Opinion | America's Lethal Politics, Sarah Palin Jurors Said They Saw News Alerts About Case
22-2-2022 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 1 seconde
OA570: Sandy Hook Families Win Major Settlement
Today we have two very significant legal settlements in the news to break down! The families of Sandy Hook victims settled with Remington, but based on the terrible state of the law, this wasn't a guarantee. Andrew explains how it happened! In a somewhat parallel settlement, a victim of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein settled, but only because of an interesting ruling on a motion to dismiss. Before that. we've got updates on oral arguments in the NY AG motion to quash, the NFL hiring Loretta Lynch & other NFL stuff, the bizarre Durham filing, and the 5th Circuit Injunction related to vaccines and airlines. And then, some Cardi B stuff. So much news! Links: Daniel Snyder Alleged Sexual Harassment Details, Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, GIUFFRE v. ANDREW ruling, Sandy Hook Families Reach Settlement With Gunmaker Remington, 15 U.S.C. § 7901 – “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005”, Bernie Sanders voted for it, 15 US Code § 7902, 15 US Code § 7903, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Chapter 735a, § 42-110b, Cardi B on Her Unstoppable Rise GQ
18-2-2022 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 32 seconden
OA569: Cawthorn Is as Bad at Picking Lawyers as He Is at Not Doing Insurrections
We've got a delightful update in the Madison Cawthorn "one totally legitimate effort" to keep him off the ballot! Cawthorn's lawyers made a truly pathetic attempt at an injunction. It's bad law, but good deep dive! Also, a big Opening Arguments was Right about the DHS saga from a few years ago. Don't remember what we're talking about? Don't worry, we've got your back and it is good news! As if that isn't enough, we've got a bonus Wordle Law Wildcard! Just listen, alright! Links: I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, Employment Authorization Document, Federal Court Restores Access to Work Permits for Many Asylum Seekers, Trump Rule final text, AILA - DHS Secretary Ratifies Rule, Judge Beryl Howell says NOPE, Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), Wordle and IP law, Cawthorn Injunction, State Board Answer, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), Chavez v. Evans, 446 P.2d 445 (NM 1968)
15-2-2022 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 58 seconden
OA568: How Christian Nationalism Fueled the Insurrection
Andrew Seidel returns to tell us about the report he and Amanda Tyler put together detailing how Christian Nationalism was central to the Jan. 6th Insurrection. The evidence is overwhelming and is often ignored by the media, so now is our chance to help get this vital information out to the world!
11-2-2022 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 59 seconden
OA567: Pop-Law! Cardi B Wins Defamation Suit Against Worst Person on Earth
You think you know what a "bad document" is? You haven't seen anything like this! Keen listeners should know by now that winning a defamation suit as a famous person is a tough bar to clear. But, if the person you are suing is an absolute trainwreck and is possibly the worst person in the world, that bar can be cleared. Listen as Ace Associate Morgan Stringer tells us what happened and why Cardi B won!
8-2-2022 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 17 seconden
OA566: Explosive Lawsuit Against the NFL Details Racial Bias
After being fired from the Miami Dolphins, Brian Flores has filed a very serious lawsuit against the NFL for racial bias in hiring. This is absolutely huge news. Find out why the NFL is in serious trouble! Links: Flores v. NFL, Douglas Wigdor - New York's Best Employment Lawyer, 42 US Code § 1981 - Equal rights under the law, Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African American-Owned Media, Palmer v Cook :: 2019, NJ law against discrimination
4-2-2022 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 26 seconden
OA565: How Madison Cawthorn Could Be Kept off the Ballot
Check out this one WEIRD trick to.... *record scratch* wait a minute... it's not a weird trick? Wow! Well, check out this one legitimate way in which Madison Cawthorn could be kept off the ballot! It turns out, the Constitution actually isn't a super big fan of insurrections. Also, some additional info on anti-trust law, and a Wild Card (wooooooooo!) on a new bill written by a Democrat AND a Republican that actually has a chance of passing! Links: Cawthorn Complaint, Next day order staying proceedings, Gerard Magliocca, Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article 11B. Challenge to Candidacy, GOP Power Lawyer: Congress Said Insurrection Is Cool In 1872, 1872 Amnesty Act, Klobuchar Cotton Bill
1-2-2022 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 55 seconden
OA564: The Reteyerment; At-Will Employees Forced to Stay? and Avenatti vs Stormy Daniels!
Huge news day! BREYER WILL RETEYER! What a relief. Andrew takes us through that and the potential replacements. They're all great! Then we've got, by immense popular demand, coverage of a story in which at-will employees were forced by a court to stay in their job. What happened? Was it reported correctly? Find out! Then finally, it's Stormy Daniels vs scumbag Michael Avenatti in one of the many trials Avenatti is facing for his unethical behavior. Links: Leader of the Oath Keepers, Democrats Can Replace Justice Stephen Breyer on Party Lines, injunction against at-will employees
28-1-2022 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 39 seconden
OA563: Microsoft, Activision, and Monopoly Law!
There was huge news in the gaming industry as Microsoft announced a deal to acquire Activision! You may remember Activision from such episodes as OA513: California v. Activision Blizzard, Inc in which we covered some of the disgusting sexist behavior that has landed the company in hot water. How does that affect this acquisition? Well, you might be surprised! Listen in! Links: 15 US Code § 1 - Trusts, etc, 15 US Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty, MICROSOFT HALTS MERGER WITH INTUIT - The Washington Post, United States v. Microsoft Corp, United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97, US v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (2001)
25-1-2022 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 8 seconden
OA562: Supreme Court Rules Against Trump; Interview with Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi
It's a good news/bad news type of day. The bad news - voting rights has failed in the Senate due to... exactly the two Senators you'd think. But here's the great news! First, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump about the Jan 6th documents! Andrew gives us the full breakdown. And the double good news: We've got an interview with House Rep Raja Krishnamoorthi! He reacts to voting rights, Jan 6th, and explains his Ban Conflicted Trading Act! Links: Trump v. Thompson (DC Cir Dec. 9, 2021), SC opinion, Ban Conflicted Trading Act
21-1-2022 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 31 seconden
OA561: Why Ghislaine Maxwell Could Get a New Trial
A juror lied about being a victim of sexual assault. Is that enough for Ghislaine Maxwell to get a new trial? Find out as Andrew brings us the legal deep dive. Also, GOOD NEWS! The Ohio Supreme Court struck down some gerrymandered maps. It's fantastic news and we're here to tell you all about it! Links: Rule 33. New Trial, McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), Ramos v. Louisiana – 140 S.Ct 1390 (2020), Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U. S. 243, 251 (1940), League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, Article XI - Ohio Constitution
18-1-2022 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 58 seconden
OA560: Supreme Court Just Plain Making Sh*t Up In Vaccine Ruling
There is a ton of breaking news today, happening just as we went to record. Andrew had time to briefly look over the Supreme Court ruling on the vaccine mandates and it is TERRIBLE. To quote Andrew's live reaction off mic, "Oh they're just lying now." It's that bad. But, we also had some good breaking news! In a nice timely Andrew Was Right, Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes was arrested on Jan 6 charges despite not even being there, signaling an escalation in the whole consequences thing. This is good. All that PLUS a wonderful deep dive on an alleged "one weird trick" to solve the filibuster. You know by now it probably won't work, but it actually does and it's very interesting! It just doesn't solve the problem people hope it would. Links: Democracy Docket on Twitter, Chuck Schumer's filibuster dodge MSNBC, Congressional Research Service, Secretary of the Senate, Senate Rule IX, McConnell threatens Senate shutdown if Democrats nuke filibuster, Fake Electors
14-1-2022 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 26 seconden
OA559: Nirvana Baby Lawsuit Dismissed... Or Was It?
It's another instance of media coverage of the law not quite getting it right! The lawsuit actually will be back, and Andrew is here to explain why and what really happened! But first, meat's back on the menu, boys! The Biden Administration has been finding creative ways to help people, this time with a Meat EO. Andrew takes the opportunity to explain how Federal Rulemaking works and how Democrats are constantly working to improve things in ways that aren't always obvious. Links: The Biden-Harris Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain, Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, Lawsuit Accusing Nirvana of Sexually Exploitive Imagery Is Dismissed, nirvana-lawsuit.pdf, MTD filed 12/22, granted for failure to respond, local rules
11-1-2022 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 20 seconden
OA558: One Year Since 1/6 - What Merrick Garland Said (and Didn't Say)
It's been both an eternity and no time since the disgusting attack on our nation's Capitol one year ago. We've seen some amount of justice dealt to those involved, but mostly at lower levels. Is there more to come? Will those at the top face consequences? Andrew is here reading the tea leaves on Merrick Garland's speech, and they are some interesting leaves... In the second segment, Andrew tells us about the worthless ethics report issued by Chief Justice Roberts. Links: Read Merrick Garland's Full Jan. 6 Speech, 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, "On Sexual Harassment in the Judiciary" by Leah M. Litman and Deeva Shah, Supreme Court order vax case
It's another mini-Law'd Awful Lawsuits! Terpsichore, or should we say, "Terpsehore," is at it again, with one of the worst all time complaints ever covered on the show. Listen in as we have a lot of fun dissecting this atrocity! Then, we've got a really fun baseball law update that you're going to love, even if you aren't a fan! And we cover the Riot Games DFEH settlement, and an actual good complaint filed against OAN and Giuliani. Links: Terpy's new lawsuit, Russell A. Newman, terpy loves 17, MLBTR posts billionaires, Riot games settlement, 100m settlement, Activision employees, Freeman and Moss v Giuliani
4-1-2022 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 25 seconden
OA556: Maxwell Convicted; BBC Invites Dershowitz to Comment Despite Massive Conflict of Interest
Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted on 5/6 counts. Andrew takes us through it, as well as how the BBC made an absolutely colossal blunder in inviting Alan Dershowitz on to comment. Then, we go through an update on the Trump lawsuit over documents. It's headed to the Supreme Court! Links: Maxwell Indictment, 18 USC 2423, Dershowitz Epstein history, DC Cir Opinion (Dec. 9th), 3 USC 15, Trump cert petition, Application for stay of mandate, Motion to expedite, Supplemental briefing, Eliason article
31-12-2021 • 1 uur, 2 seconden
OA555: Dems Must Gerrymander to Level the Playing Field - A Look at Redistricting for 2022
No more bringing knives to gun fights! Andrew breaks down the 2022 redistricting in key states. Listen in to find out why gerrymandering is a must for Democrats if we want to achieve any sort of fairness long term. Then, we have an extended mailbag segment with some truly amazing emails from our brilliant listeners! Links: Cal. Code sec. 8521 et seq., Dave's Redistricting
How is the 6th Circuit overruling the 5th Circuit, you ask? Great question. That's just like you, you brilliant legal mind! Well there's some interesting legal quirkery behind that. But also, wait until you get a load of how terrible and embarrassing the 5th Circuit's original decision was... Also, we react to the bad Manchin news last week. And finally, Andrew's got another iteration of what we now call Cargo Cult Lawyering, with a John Eastman update! Links: 6th Circuit Ruling, 28 US Code § 2112, BST Holdings, Eastman - it's my first day
24-12-2021 • 56 minuten, 58 seconden
OA553: The Supreme Court Commission Failed. Gabe Roth Joins Us to Discuss Why
The Supreme Court Commission finished its work early! Probably because, you know, they didn't f*cking do anything useful. Gabe Roth of Fix the Court returns to discuss why the commission failed, what's really wrong with the court, and debate with us how to actually fix it. Court packing? Term limits? Both? Listen in!
21-12-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 49 seconden
OA552: Will Joe Manchin Save Democracy? No, Really! ... Stop Laughing...
Today's show breaks down President Biden's pivot from passing the Build Back Better Act to passing the Joe Manchin-cosponsored Freedom to Vote Act, S. 2747. What's in the bill? Is it Manchin'ed? Listen and find out! In the "B" segment, Andrew points and laughs at insurrection John C. Eastman's doomed attempt to prevent Verizon from turning over his phone records to the 1/6 Commission.. It's funny because they're all dumb. Finally, we have a very brief update on the Activision lawsuit you won't want to miss. Links Here's a link to a Washington Post article that contains additional links showing how you can help victims of the Quad State tornadoes. Here's the text of S. 2747. Eastman's lawsuit is hilariously bad, and don't forget to check out the case he thinks helps him (it doesn't), Yellin v. US, 374 US 109 (1963). Finally, we explain what that denial of DFEH's motion to intervene in the Activision lawsuit really means.
17-12-2021 • 56 minuten, 53 seconden
OA551: Trump May Out of Office but His Federal Judges Are Not
They're busy at work making a complete mockery of the law. To call them howler monkeys is an insult to howler monkeys, who I'm sure would at least try their best. Andrew takes us through a couple recent opinions by Trump Judges that remind us why it was so goddamn important both to elect Biden AND to win those two Georgia Senate seats. Let this episode be a motivator! These are the people who end up deciding the most important cases when we let Republicans back in power. Links: VanDyke ABA rating, Duncan v Bolta, Terry A. Doughty, Louisiana v Becerra, Who Are the Scientists Behind the Great Barrington Declaration?, Peter A. McCullough
14-12-2021 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 35 seconden
OA550: Oxford Shooter's Parents Charged
In what seems to be an unprecedented but perhaps bold and necessary move, the parents of the Oxford shooter have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Andrew has the breakdown of what happened and if the charges are likely to stick. Is it a slippery slope to... anyone being charged for everything ever? Nah. Before that, we've got an update about the Amazon unionization effort. A new election has been ordered, which is good news! Find out what Amazon is guilty of. Links: Amazon new election order, Michigan Penal Code Section 750.321, jury instructions
Baseball law! This season is in jeopardy because some crusty, probably racist, billionaires don't want to give up any money. The OA message on sports law has always been loud and clear: side with labor over the owners! Listen in and find out why. Before that, we've got some delightful updates on the kraken idiots having to pay legal bills! Links: Kraken order, A letter to baseball fans, List of Major League Baseball replacement players
7-12-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 21 seconden
OA548: Supreme Court Signals Roe v. Wade's Demise
Warning: this episode contains yelling. But like, why wouldn't it. We break down oral arguments in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health aka the Handmaid's Tale-ification of the US. The conservative buffoons on the court made jaw droppingly stupid arguments, while some brilliant advocates did an amazing job fighting this losing battle. We've got clips and highlights and a whole lot of rage.
3-12-2021 • 1 uur, 25 minuten, 58 seconden
OA547: Can Alex Jones Take the 5th?
Alex Jones has been in the news lately for losing default judgment after default judgment, and might plan on taking the 5th in front of Congress. So, can he do that? The reasoning proves textualism is terrible and wrong. Then, we've got some updates and clarifications on the Arbery verdict, including capital punishment, appeals by the prosecution, and the misconduct by the first two prosecutors. Finally, a probation officer wrote in to expand on the weird "no porn" rule. Links: 18 US Code § 3731 - Appeal by United States, 2020 Maryland Statutes Section 12-302, Jackie Johnson Indictment, McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34
30-11-2021 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 14 seconden
OA546: Three Racist Murderers Found Guilty of Murdering Ahmaud Arbery
Wait the system... can work? It did in this instance at least, and it was a very important one. Three pieces of racist trash were found guilty of the horrifying murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Andrew explains the verdict. However, the system also... very much doesn't work. Andrew breaks down the disturbing case of a judge giving a 4 time rapist NO jail time after praying on it. Then finally, we break down an interesting new argument in the Trump records case. Links: Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Eagle, Georgia Code § 16-5-1, Christopher Belter: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know, House Brief, Court's 11/23 order, National Coal. to Save Our Mall v. Norton, 44 U.S. Code § 2204, Trump's reply brief
25-11-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten
OA545: The 1/6 Commission Continues To Do Work
Lots of updates on the 1/6 commission! The Bannon indictment, a debunking on the idea that Holder and Bannon are in any way comparable, the Q Anon Shaman sentencing, and the Bar Complaint against John Eastman reveals stunning new details on the insurrection attempt! Links: Bannon Indicted for Contempt of Congress, 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify, Terrible Binnall brief, 'QAnon Shaman' Jacob Chansley sentenced to 41 months, Eastman bar complaint
23-11-2021 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 55 seconden
Bonus: Rittenhouse Acquitted on All Charges
Well this f@cking sucks. Lots to cover in this bonus emergency pod. Unfiltered and unedited.
19-11-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 55 seconden
OA544: Debunking the Left's Rittenhouse Trial Myths
Let's face it - the conspiracy theory/fake news coming from the left on the Rittenhouse Trial is really terrible. AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN that the left is as bad as the right or anything like that. However, we on OA have found it to be exhausting and frustrating. So Andrew is here to set the record straight! But first! We've got some activism for ya. Biden's bull crap Supreme Court Commission is filled with Federalist Society conservatives. It's a waste of time and we need to do something about it. Fortunately, there's a meeting that we can crash! Get the details here. Links: Democrats call out Biden Supreme Court commission, motion to dismiss, Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60, Jury instructions, Sentencing Policies and Practices in Wisconsin
19-11-2021 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 12 seconden
OA543: Morgan Stringer Breaks Down The Astroworld Tragedy
It's Morgan Stringer's Pop-Law! But less fun this time. Morgan is here to tell us all about the tragic Astroworld Crowd Crush that happened, and what the legal fallout is likely to be. Also, don't miss our Rittenhouse Trial analysis on patreon.com/law!
16-11-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 37 seconden
OA542: Oklahoma Supreme Court Overturns Verdict Against Opioid Companies
Sometimes Andrew tells us the coverage is wrong and actually a thing wasn't so bad. This is not one of those times. This ruling was an absolute disgrace. And wouldn't you know it, Republicans were responsible. We break it all down. Other topics today: we discuss Veterans Day and the Rittenhouse Trial. And, Vulgarity for Charity is back! Make sure to donate! Andrew tells us about a major sentencing in the 1/6 insurrection. And, lots of Trump documents are about to be released to the public! Links: Defense asks for time served, Man Sentenced to 41 Months in Prison for Assaulting Law Enforcement in Jan. 6, 2019 Bench Trial $572 million, overturned by OK Supreme Court, One dissent, Nov 9th Chutkan denies injunction, Nov 10th Chutkan denies stay
12-11-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 4 seconden
OA541: Monica Miller on Happy the Elephant and Legal Personhood for Animals
After our episode on Cocaine Hippos, we were contacted by previous guest and all-star attorney Monica Miller about the efforts to free Happy the Elephant. Monica works with the Nonhuman Rights Project, and they are utilizing a fascinating legal strategy to try to free certain animals from captivity. She takes us through the case and the law! In the first segment, we've got a number of OA was wrongs and rights, about hippos, Mark Jensen, AMD, and more. Links: Wild New York YouTube, Larry Tribe op-ed, National Geographic coverage, Martha Nussbaum amicus
9-11-2021 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 41 seconden
OA540: The Bizarre Case of Steven Donziger
It's one of the most requested stories for OA to cover – Steven Donziger won billions in judgment against Chevron in an Ecuadorian court in 2011. Then Chevron fought back. Now, 10 years after the original victory, Donziger has been handed loss after loss, been disbarred, and been found in criminal and civil contempt of court. His cause is deeply sympathetic to left wing audiences. But is it as simple as the big bad oil company beating up a poor lawyer? But first, some reaction to Tuesday's election results. And then some much requested analysis of the Rittenhouse Judge's latest actions. So much good info! Links: Rittenhouse judge fumes about media criticism, Juror Tossed from Rittenhouse Trial for Jacob Blake Joke, Rittenhouse Judge Explains the Law by Citing the Bible, The History of the Hearsay Rule, The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Coy v. Iowa, Rittenhouse: Defense Attorney Repeats N-Word in Opening Statement, Chevron v. Donziger, In RE Donziger, Chevron v. Donziger, 2nd Cir affirmation, guilty of criminal contempt, 2nd circuit ruling on bail, Donziger facing jail time for criminal contempt
5-11-2021 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 10 seconden
OA539: Pablo Escobar's Cocaine Hippos Are People, My Friend (?)
It's time for a good old fashioned low stakes fun legal deep dive! Get ready to learn what on Earth this episode title even means! Before that, we've got some Thomas was allegedly wrong about duck duck grey duck! And then a wildcard segment about Dan Tana's vs. Dantana's! Links: Animals Recognized as Legal Persons for the First Time in U.S. Court, Pablo Escobar’s hippos, Maldonado Declaration, Rule 45. Subpoena, 28 U.S. Code § 1782, the motion, Intel Corp v. AMD, 542 U.S. 241, Dan Tana v. Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767
2-11-2021 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 39 seconden
OA538: The Rittenhouse Trial Instructions, Explained
Yet another packed episode! Our main story is what's really going on with the Rittenhouse Trial Instructions. You might have seen the coverage stating that the victims can't be called victims but can be called rioters and looters. Is reality as bad as the coverage? Andrew explains! Then in what is our co-main segment, Andrew gives us his initial thoughts on the hot off the presses Build Back Better Plan and what Sinema and Manchin have cost us. Links: HCSM letter, Wisconsin Legislature: 940.02, Kyle Rittenhouse back in court today, https://ballotpedia.org/Bruce_Schroeder, Kyle Ritttenhouse trial: Judge Bruce Schroeder to preside, Rittenhouse judge in spotlight after disallowing word 'victims' in courtroom, BBB deal Page 1 Page 2 Page 3, Whitehouse.gov BBB, HR5376 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Build Back Better Act
29-10-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 6 seconden
OA537: Why CA Prop 22 Was Ruled Unconstitutional
Another classic deep dive! You might remember California passing AB5, which sought to elevate so-called "gig economy" workers from independent contractors to full on employees. It was not a perfect solution and left some small businesses wondering how they would cope. However, after that was passed, tech companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Proposition 22, which would basically take the giant corporations off the hook while still requiring everyone else to obey AB5. This was a terrible result and had everyone angry at California voters. But now there is a happy update to the story! Listen in!
26-10-2021 • 1 uur, 12 seconden
OA536: The Tennessee Judge Who Keeps Jailing Kids
So much in today's episode! First: a Thomas rant on police striking and quitting over the COVID vaccine. Next: a brief look into Striketober and when Reagan ruined unions. Third: Steve Bannon contempt order! Then finally our main segment on the awful story broken by ProPublica of a Tennessee Judge who has ruined childrens' lives over a made up crime. But wait there's more! A wildcard segment on Activision-Blizzard in which Andrew shares the names of the lawyers who moved from the EEOC to DFEH and why this case is still incredibly weird and has only gotten more weird! Links: Strike Support: What Is It and How You Can Help Striking Workers, Trump Bogus Lawsuit, List of attorneys who tried to steal your 2020 vote, Outrage Grows Over Jailing of Children, Tennessee Code :: Title 39, Rule 203: Procedures Upon Taking a Delinquent Child Into Custody, 2010 Tennessee Code :: Title 37 - Juveniles, activision-blizzard-et-als-ex-parte-application-to-stay-the-case, Rule 4.3 Communicating with an Unrepresented Person
22-10-2021 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 25 seconden
OA535: Roe is Doomed. Contraceptives Could Be Next - Part 2
This is part 2 of the deep-dive into Griswold v Connecticut. If you didn't catch part 1, make sure to listen! It's OA533! But also, since we love you so much, there's a wildcard on more Sidney Powell terrible lawyering! She's the grift that keeps on giving.
19-10-2021 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 41 seconden
OA534: State and Federal Agencies Now Fighting EACH OTHER in Blizzard Activision Case
Our own Andrew Torrez broke this news while on vacation, no less! Here's an article referencing the podcast! We had assumed that the DFEH and the EEOC were working in coordination on the Blizzard Activision case, but that turns out to NOT be the case! Listen to Andrew break down this startling development! After that, one (maybe) final look back at the Weird Al episode for an Andrew (and Thomas) was wrong!
15-10-2021 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 59 seconden
OA533: Roe is Doomed. Contraceptives Could Be Next
Today is part 1 of a much needed but quite dire deep-dive. The case is Griswold v. Connecticut, which may be familiar even to the layperson. It's what gives us the right to buy contraceptives and not have shopkeepers ask us if we're married. How could that possibly be overturned, you might ask? Well, legally speaking, it is justified in the exact same way as Roe. Listen to learn more.
12-10-2021 • 58 minuten, 31 seconden
OA532: OK I'll Bite What is the Debt Ceiling
If that's something you've been too afraid to say lately, this is the episode for you! Andrew breaks down the history of the debt ceiling, and why it is as pointless as it is potentially catastrophic! And a wildcard segment on Texas SB 8 being enjoined. Come see Thomas and others (like Ross and Carrie!) for California Freethought Day! It's online this year! Info here. Links: 31 US Code § 3101 - Public debt limit, DOJ motion for injunction
8-10-2021 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 5 seconden
OA531: Pop-law! Nirvana Sued by the Nevermind Baby; and a #FreeBritney Update!
Everyone's favorite Ace Associate, Morgan Stringer, is back for another rousing edition of Morgan's Pop-law! So many of you asked us about the Nirvana lawsuit, so we've got the full breakdown for you. And Jamie Spears is no longer the conservator over Britney! We are one step closer to hashtag freeing Britney! Links: Nevermind That Nirvana Child Pornography Lawsuit, Attorneys Say, Elden v Nirvana, Inside Nirvana's 'Nevermind' Pool Party, 25 Years Later, Born To Swim?, Jamie Spears was removed from Britney Spears's conservatorship
5-10-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 56 seconden
OA530: Andrew Testifies to Congress on Christian Healthshare Ministries!
Mr. Torrez went to Washington! Ok ok, not quite as glamorous as all that, but Andrew DID testify via Skype in a closed door congressional hearing about Christian Healthshare Ministries! How cool is that! Andrew breaks down what he talked about, and the new facts he dug up in his preparation! Also, if you or anyone you know has been harmed by a Healthshare, please write into the show! Email is below. In the second half, Andrew goes through the Activision Blizzard settlement and why it is good news! Links: Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries 990, National Coalition of Health Care Sharing Ministries 990, Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan Inc. 990, Christian Healthcare Ministries 990, Initial Blizzard lawsuit, Activision Blizzard Confirms SEC Is Investigating It, EEOC (federal) – lawsuit filed Monday 9/27
1-10-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 21 seconden
OA529: The Weird Al Deep-Dive We Didn't Know We Desperately Needed
Alright so... we got a lot of emails from our satire-related episode. Like a lot. And it all focused on the same one thing from a quick aside about Weird Al. Since then, a massive debate has taken place in the Facebook group over whether or not satirists like Weird Al would owe royalties. Andrew's previous segment said no; many commenters say yes. So are we issuing an Andrew was wrong? Find out the answer to that and MANY fascinating related issues in our much needed Weird Al deep-dive!
28-9-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 30 seconden
OA528: Disgraced Ex-President Sues Niece Mary Trump
for... revealing the depths of the Trump family tax crimes. This suit has not been reported very well in the media. Andrew has the breakdown, and the main takeaway that should be the headline everywhere this is covered. But that's not all the Trump related news! Indeed we've got two more stories somehow crammed into this episode. They involve two "bad documents" as we call them here on the show. The Dominion letter and the Eastman memo. One reveals the election lies were known bull shit and the other is a blueprint for a coup. Yikes.
24-9-2021 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 35 seconden
OA527: The Hilarious Legal Battle Over 'OlneyFans' Parody Article
When the Tacoma Torch posted this hilarious parody news story, the Olney Community Baseball Team responded in the worst possible way – they had their lawyer try to intimidate the satirical site into silence. What the hell were they thinking? It only got more hilarious from there. Listen in for Andrew's breakdown! In the first segment, we go over some great listener feedback, including an email from the person who unmasked Terpsichore Maras. And several thoughtful, important missives from some of our transmasculine listeners on the language around the Texas Abortion Bill coverage. Then, because Andrew has apparently been taking some time management enhancing drugs or something, we get a WILDCARD segment on some really terrible people involved in the insurrection being allowed back into polite society like nothing ever happened. Links: Women Aren’t The Only Ones Who Need “Women’s Health”, Tacoma Torch brilliant response, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), Appellate court opinion, Campbell v. Acuff Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), Sidney Powell Claims 70% Of California Recall Voters Were Turned Away From Polls In One County
21-9-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 46 seconden
OA526: Updates from Five Cases on the OA Docket
So many updates, so little time! Listen as Andrew breaks down the developments in five cases: Texas SB8, E. Jean Carroll, Activision Blizzard, Roger Stone, and Pauline Bauer! If you're doubting that he can squeeze all that into one episode, you're not alone! Links: DoJ motion for injunction, Planned Parenthood et al. v. Texas Right to Life, Carroll v Trump reply brief, letter requesting stay, Activision hires new executives, Activision Blizzard NLRB case, Roger Stone interrupted during radio interview to get served, Capitol police complaint, State response to Bauer, motion to revoke pretrial release
17-9-2021 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 38 seconden
OA525: Insurrectionist Mounts Sovereign Citizen Legal Defense, Hilarity Ensues
It's Andrew's favorite thing in the world! No, not Transformers porn... Ok, it's Andrew's second favorite thing in the world: Sovereign Citizen nutbaggery. Listen as Andrew breaks down the hilarious, nonsensical gibberish that is: the Sovereign Citizen insurrectionist! Links: Pauline fires lawyer, Hernandez still doing her best, motion to dismiss, courts rebut nonsense
14-9-2021 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 18 seconden
OA524: Laurence Tribe Thinks Grendel's Den Case Will Stop the Texas Abortion Law. Is He Right?
Andrew's favorite Constitutional Law expert, Laurence Tribe, has written an op-ed in the Boston Globe arguing that a Massachusetts case called Larkin v. Grendel's Den will "end the Texas abortion law." That sounds too good to be true. So, is it too good to be true? Or is it just true? Find out! But that's not all, infact we've got 2 more segments in this action packed show! There's another glorious Kraken Sanctions update, which includes an itemized bill for $200,000 that Sidney Powell will be picking up. And in the wildcard, we break down an interesting case involving Facebook in Australia. They don't have a pesky Section 230 down under, which leads to some very fascinating results from an American perspective. Also we briefly discuss the Merrick Garland announcement. Links: Whitmer sanctions tab, Fink sanctions tab, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, States’ Stances on Public Interest Standing, Wis law 5.90(2)
10-9-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 46 seconden
OA523: Is the CA Recall Unconstitutional?
Andrew breaks down the state of the recall, the porked polls, and Clark v. Weber! Paffrath still seems to be some sort of Democratic frontrunner, but how much of that is real and how much is poll pork? After breaking down the interesting arguments in the suit against the recall, we answer a listener who is critical of our critical opinions of the recall. Were we wrong? Find out! Links: Clark v Weber complaint, opposition, the ruling
7-9-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 2 seconden
OA522: Roe v. Wade is Dead.
This is not an exaggeration. Sure, technically speaking the Supreme Court hasn't said the magic words "we overturn Roe v. Wade" but they used the shadow docket to effectively eliminate it. This is bad. Very, very bad. So what exactly happened? What's in the Texas law that SCOTUS allowed to stand? How completely garbage, unprecedented, and counter to the rule of law is this move? Listen the Andrew's expert analysis and find out.
3-9-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 29 seconden
OA521: Knowledge Fight Explains the Owen Shroyer Grift
Our friends Dan and Jordan from the Knowledge Fight podcast are here to break down a creative grift being pulled off by Owen Shroyer. Who tf is Owen Shroyer, Thomas asks? He's an Alex Jones wannabe who has raised $250,000 to defend himself against... basically some made up BS. Listen and enjoy this hilarious breakdown! Links: Shroyer indictment, 18 US Code § 1752, 40 US Code § 5104 - Unlawful activities, 2018 Sentencing Guidelines Manual, addendum order, 28 CFR § 50.10 reporter policy
31-8-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 51 seconden
OA520: Kraken Lawyers Hit with Sanctions! YASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Today's episode is. So. Satisfying. It's not just sanctions against all the Kraken lawyers. That alone would already be amazing. But it's ALSO consequences for world's most punchable douchebag Jacob Wohl. It's so, so good. Take a listen. You've earned it. Ok full disclosure there is a slight amount of bad news regarding Texas Democrats having to return to the state empty handed, since a couple of Democrats refuse to do the right thing and eliminate the filibuster. No sugar coating that one, but we move quickly through that and get to the awesome news! Links: Sanctions order, Texas Dems end quorum-busting efforts, FCC PROPOSES $5 MILLION ROBOCALLING FINE AGAINST JACOB WOHL AND JOHN BURKMAN
27-8-2021 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 19 seconden
OA519: No, Britney Spears' Dad Is NOT Stepping Down as Conservator
It's another edition of Ace Associate Morgan Stringer's Pop Law! The media widely reported that Jamie Spears intends to step down as conservator. BUT.. that's a bad law thingy. He actually isn't. Tune in and hear the real law talkin'! Then, we talk about some great news in the battle for trans rights. Hobby Lobby was dealt a loss by the court. On the bad news front though, the Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton decision was horrible. But Mr. Sunshine himself, Andrew Torrez, has a positive spin for us. Links: Hobby Lobby v. Sommerville, Texas can ban common abortion procedure in second trimester, appeals court rules, prior Fifth Circuit panel opinion, Fifth Circuit en banc
24-8-2021 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 16 seconden
OA518: Terpsichore Tries Her Hand at Frivolous Lawsuits
Terpsichore, who also goes by dozens of slight variations on her name, saw the Kraken nonsense that has led to nothing but sanctions hearing after sanctions hearing and figured why not do... more terrible law. She's suing Dominion back for eleventy billion dollars. How is that damages number justified? GFY. What are the alleged counts of defamation? GFY. Where do these horrible lawyers keep coming from and how did they beat Thomas at the bar exam? We'll never know. Hear all about it on today's show! After that, we do some Andrew was wrong, regarding gift taxes and British courts. Plus an email from the one and only Michael Marshall on Telegram and how it does seem to be the app of choice for horrible racists. Links: 26 US Code § 102, Gift Taxes, House of Lords - Wikipedia, Virginia Governor's Council, Terpsichore affidavit, Terpsichore deleted webpage, Tore Maras-Lindeman bio, complaint if you can call it that, ND vs Terp and all her names, Jones v. Trice, 360 S.W.2d 48 (1962)
20-8-2021 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 59 seconden
OA517: Cuomo Resigns; Dominion Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss - AKA Consequences for Baddies!
It's a consequences episode, our favorite genre! Our first bit of great news is that Cuomo resigned. Andrew has a few follow up thoughts on that and our episode on Cuomo, as well as some introductory information on who will be New York's first ever female Governor, Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul! Then we get to the great news of the Dominion Lawsuit surviving a motion to dismiss. If you've listened to the show for a while, you might have noticed that defamation suits tend to have a tough time surviving motions to dismiss. That's because our 1st Amendment is very broad. But the Big Liars went so beyond the pale, they're finding out even the 1st Amendment has limits. Yay! Links: NY AG report on Cuomo, Kathy Hochul, Hochul's govtrac, Hochul speaks, Survey USA poll, Emerson Poll, Dominion Opinion
17-8-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 38 seconden
OA516: We Turned Down Ads for a Scam Company Called CrowdHealth. Other Shows May Not. Send Them This!
We bring you a somewhat unusual rapid-response Friday episode in which we break down a new startup company, CrowdHealth, Inc., that is apparently engaged in a mass ad buy across the kinds of podcasts you likely listen to. This means that within a few weeks, you'll probably be hearing all sorts of paid testimonials for a product that does not exist right now and bears all the hallmarks of a classic (legal) scam. This company is funded with $6 million -- some (most?) of which will be spent on the advertising blitz we refused to be a part of. Would you trust an insurance company with just $6 million in reserves? (No.) Would you trust an insurance company that offered contradictory promises? (No.) Does it make any sense to pay an underfunded entity for the right to pay your own medical bills? (No.) We explain how this is almost certainly someone who is very familiar with the kinds of Christian Health Share Ministry scams we debunked in Episode 497 and is trying to replicate that -- only worse. Listen and find out why. For service of process purposes, Opening Arguments is a product of and is copyright (c) 2021 Opening Arguments Media, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company with its principle place of business at 28 E. Susequehanna Ave., Suite 206, Towson, Maryland 21287. This episode relied upon the following resources: Links: Websites: crowdhealth.com goes nowhere; crowdhealth.org is an unrelated company selling KN95 masks and other COVID supplies; this product is at the (unfinished) website joincrowdhealth.com. You can read the two-page flyer CrowdHealth sent out here. We explained why Christian Health Sharing Ministries are a scam back in Episode 497. You can search for CrowdHealth, Inc., a Texas corporation organized on April 19, 2021, on the Texas Corporations website's search page (it will pull up in a separate window). Here is a link to CrowdHealth's SEC Form D filing showing it raised $6,025,800 from 23 angel investors; that story was covered in the May 10, 2021 issue of the Austin Business Journal. And if you want to know more about CrowdHealth's founder, CEO, and (possibly?) it's only shareholder, Andy Schoonover, you can check out: a) Andy's LinkedIn page; b) his LinkedIn post soliciting doctors to share pricing information and promising "a bunch of uninsured folks who want to pay you quickly and $$ directly"; c) his stupid unfunny TikTok thing he shared on LinkedIn; d) his Twitter page; and e) his bio at Lion Venture Partners. Legal documents: IRS Publication 16-0051; 26 U.S.C. § 213; and 26 U.S.C § 5000A Appearances None. Invite us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
13-8-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 42 seconden
OA515: Who Governs the Governors?
NY Governor Cuomo was found to have committed criminal sexual harassment. Almost all top Democrats, including Preseident Biden, has said he must resign. But will he? If he doesn't, what options remain for removal? Meanwhile, Governor Newsom of CA is facing a recall election and isn't guilty of any serious misconduct. So what gives? How can Californians be voting to recall a relatively decent Governor, but New Yorkers can't recall a disgusting creep? As usual, Andrew has the full breakdown!
10-8-2021 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 40 seconden
OA514: I Love It When A Plan Comes Together
Today's episode tracks recent developments in the two major stories we covered recently: last Friday's Episode 512 regarding the ongoing quest to hold lawyers accountable for the (nonsense) lawsuits they file, and Tuesday's Episode 513 about the California v. Activision Blizzard lawsuit. We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about language and then describe the developments since the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing sued Activision Blizzard for allegations of widespread discrimination in the workplace. Learn what the Activision employees are demanding and other efforts for activism surrounding the lawsuit. After that, it's time to check in on the effect that a late-breaking sanctions order in Colorado may have on the Kraken sanction hearings we know and love. Join us as we break it down for you! Links Click here for the Judge's Order granting sanctions in O'Rourke et al. v. Dominion Voting Systems et al. (D. Colo.). King v. Whitmer docs: (a) transcript of the sanctions hearing. (b) Detroit's reply brief; (c) Lin Wood's reply brief; (d) Emily Newman's reply brief; (e) Donald Campbell's reply brief on behalf of Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler and others; and (f) Gov. Whitmer's reply brief. Appearances None. Invite us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
6-8-2021 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 20 seconden
OA513: California v. Activision Blizzard, Inc
If you're a gamer, or just very online, you have likely seen a ton of coverage of an explosive lawsuit against Activision. It alleges discriminatory behavior against women, ranging from general pay discrepancies to specific sexual misconduct claims. As usual, law-expert Andrew Torrez has the complete breakdown for us! Before that, we read a very moving email from Jane Doe #12 in the Liberty University suit. Links: The Atari Timeline, Activisionaries: How Four Programmers Changed The Game Industry, 42 US Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices, Section 432.6 - Requiring waiver of rights prohibited
3-8-2021 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 37 seconden
OA512: Actions Continue to Have Consequences!
Today's episode updates two separate lawsuits related to the 1/6 insurrection: Rep. Eric Swalwell's suit against Trump, Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks and the ongoing drama surrounding sanctions for the Kraken lawyers in King v. Whitmer, the Michigan lawsuit that exposed just how nonsensical all of the Kraken election lawsuits were. In the first segment, we learn that neither Merrick Garland's Department of Justice nor counsel for the House of Representatives believe that "inciting insurrection" is within the scope of your employment if you're a member of the House of Representatives, so... Mo Brooks is on his own on this one. This is all about the Westfall Act, which we last discussed in Episode 498. In the main segment, we check back in now that all the supplemental briefs have been filed after the mammoth 6-hour Michigan sanctions hearing. Learn who had the worst filing (hint: someone did worse than Lin Wood!), who had the... least worst?... and what is in store for all of the Kraken lawyers! BONUS: We've attached the complete six-hour hearing transcript. Links: Swalwell v. Trump: (a) docket report; (b) Swalwell's opposition to Brooks's Westfall Act motion; (c) decision of House counsel to decline to represent Brooks; and (d) DOJ's decision to decline to represent Brooks. We last discussed the Westfall Act in Episode 498. King v. Whitmer transcript of the sanctions hearing. Lin Wood's (a) brief 1 and brief 2; and (b) prior inconsistent brief in the Delaware Supreme Court admitting he represented plaintiffs in Michigan. Donald Campbell's brief on behalf of Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, and the rest of the Kraken idiots. Hoo boy, the brief filed by Stefanie Lambert Junttila on her own behalf... maybe don't represent yourself, Stef? And just because Stef didn't read it doesn't mean you shouldn't read Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005). The City of Detroit's (a) Safe Harbor letter and attached motion; and (b) supplemental brief (that's fire)! Remember all of this is about Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, if you search the transcript you'll see Howard Kleinhendler make the "fraud vitiates everything" argument, for which David Fink rightly skewers him in the City of Detroit's supplemental brief. Check out more on this stupid argument here. Appearances None. Invite us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
30-7-2021 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 54 seconden
OA511: More on the Censorious Right's Unconstitutional Quest to Cancel Knowledge
In a dizzy euphoria at having had a single good interaction with a stranger on Facebook, Andrew decided to listen to an episode of Bari Weiss's podcast featuring a debate between Chris Rufo and David French on Critical Race Theory. Apparently, Andrew has too much free time and not enough things to be mad at. But it inspired part 3 on Critical Race Theory and what the likely next Pokemon evolution of the moral panic will be. Links: The Argument of “Afropessimism”, The Political Economy of Reparations, Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope, Idaho HOUSE BILL NO.377, AZ HOUSE BILL 2898, AG Knudsen Issues Binding Opinion on Critical Race Theory, SC Bill H.4100
27-7-2021 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 31 seconden
OA510: Liberty University Punished Women Who Reported Sexual Assaults, According to Complaint
The main segment of today's show is what is known in the industry as a huge bummer. Liberty University is facing a lawsuit filed by 12 women who allege that they were sexually assaulted, and that their assault was handled horribly by the University. They also allege that Liberty's code of conduct made it more likely that they would be assaulted. It's grim, but it's a necessary story to cover and Andrew has the full legal breakdown for us. In our first segment, we hear from some people who are on the ground at the Texas legislature. Links: Abbott vetoes funding, The Liberty Way, lawsuit against Liberty University, 20 U.S. Code Chapter 38, John ED Larkin, 18 US Code § 2255
23-7-2021 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 21 seconden
OA509: Kraken Lawyers Get Full Dressing Down; the Cosby Release is EVEN MORE Worse
I'm going to go ahead and say this sanctions hearing was the most popular one in the history of law. It was so good, expect it on a future Law'd Great Sanctions Hearings, available on Patreon! Andrew breaks down some highlights here and lays out what we can expect to actually happen. Then, it's the Cosby case revelation Andrew has teased for weeks. Why is that entire saga even more worse than we originally said? Find out. Links: the hearing, multiple sanctions requests by... everyone, Rule 11, Emily P. Newman - Lawyer working to suppress legally cast votes, Lin Wood in Delaware case, Wood needs sanctions on top of sanctions, Campbell motion to release video, Rule 413, Cosby opinion, Cosby civil suit docket, motion for sanctions, Cosby motion to strike, response, forgotten until 10 yrs, Rule 5.1.5, AP renews motion, granted
20-7-2021 • 1 uur, 24 minuten, 31 seconden
OA508: Texas Democrats Flee the State to Stop Republican Voter Suppression Bill
Don't mess with Texas Democrats! Governor Abbott called an emergency session, not to fix the failing power grid or anything else important, but to ban knowledge and to restrict voting. Texas Democrats are not having it. They're playing the kind of hardball many of us have been thirsty for in this era. Andrew explains the situation and why it's a very good strategy. Then, Andrew does a victory lap for his accurate predictions in the hilarious lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen! Links: 2021 Texas legislative session, Texas House faces deadline, Anti-trans bill, Abbott 87th Special Session Agenda, Bill Text: TX SB3, Texas House Rules, Ep. 3 Official Clip | Who Is America?, case dismissed, Moore waiver agreement
16-7-2021 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 40 seconden
OA507: Who Knows What Evil Right Wing Judicial Activism Lurks in the Heart of the Supreme Court? The Shadow Docket Knows...
We are still not done telling you how bad this Supreme Court is. One thing that may help make sense of why this court is portrayed as more centrist than it is is their use of the shadow docket. So, Listener Thomas S. asks, what is a shadow docket? Do you have to fight shadow Link there? Or maybe shadow John Roberts? What cases are moving through the shadow docket and how right wing are these results? Andrew breaks it down. Then, case that has been requested by so many of you! A comic book store is suing a hotel, and they submitted a complaint partially in.... COMIC BOOK FORM! Is that legal? How will it be recieved? Listen and find out! Links: the Knight case, Third Planet Sci-Fi and Fantasy Superstore v. ASDN Houston, Rule 12. Defenses and Objections, Rule 91 - Special Exceptions, Tex. R. Civ. P. 91
13-7-2021 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 53 seconden
OA506: Trump's Desperate, Harebrained Lawsuit Is Garbage and Deserves Sanctions
And while we're on the topic of sanctions, Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law ANYWHERE for the time being, and the Kraken lawyers are all set to receive their sanctions as well. Turns out there are consequences for lying your ass off in official court filings, if you do it long enough. So listen in for a detailed breakdown of some truly terrible lawyering! Links: Rudy suspended in DC, DC Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings, where to listen to the sanctions hearing, Detroit sanctions motion, Trump sues Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, Save the Constitution From Big Tech - WSJ, Yale Professor Jed Rubenfeld Suspended for Sexual Harassment
9-7-2021 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 16 seconden
OA505: The Supreme Court Is a Partisan Instrument of Destruction on Behalf of the Republican Party and We're Going to Keep Telling You This Until the Media Stops Raving About How Centrist John Roberts Is
This easily breaks the record for longest show title. But seriously, we're fed up with this bogus Supreme Court coverage. In our main segment, Andrew has the full breakdown of Brnovich and just how terrible it is for voting rights, AND how much Alito and the conservatives are legislating from the bench. They are simply overwriting laws they don't like to accomplish right wing goals. This is pretty much an Andrew Was Right show, as the first segment is all about the Florida social media law being enjoined exactly the f how Andrew predicted. Then, to make us all feel better, we read some really great listener mail! Trust me, you won't want to miss it. It's delightful! Links: FL SB 7072, injunction
6-7-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 51 seconden
OA504: Cosby Released in Nonsense Ruling
Purely speaking in legal terms, the Cosby release is even WORSE than you have likely heard. It's a complicated breakdown, but that's what Andrew is best at! Listen in to understand just how bewildering this ruling was. After that, Andrew gives us a very quick take on the Trump Org indictments. Links: Cosby opinion, Saylor dissent, Section 3125 - Title 18, Rule 404 - Character Evidence, Commonwealth v. Stipetich
2-7-2021 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 35 seconden
OA503: Finally! Consequences for Rudy Giuliani
If you've listened to this show long enough, you know that it is seemingly impossible to be dishonest and corrupt enough for the Bar to do something about it. Well, Rudy Giuliani found a way. The NY bar has slapped him down in a way that our esteemed Andrew Torrez has never seen before. Also, we've got an update on how Christian Healthshare Ministries are STILL a scam. Then, we talk about Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Court badly mangles eminent domain. Having just heard our deep dive in episode 500, you'll be able to spot how terrible this decision is as well! And, Andrew was right on Mahanoy v. BL!
29-6-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 52 seconden
OA502: Why Critical Race Theory is Indispensable
This is a continuation of Episode 501's exploration of a rather arcane bit of legal jurisprudence that has somehow become the target du jour of the right wing, from Matt Gaetz to Newsmax to... well, Matt Gaetz again. That's right, it's an explanation of what critical race theory actually is, and whether it should be banned. (Hint: no) In this episode, you'll learn more about the definitely NOT Marxist postmodern critique of language and legal textbooks, including an in-depth discussion of a case you probably have never heard of -- Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823). And if you have heard of the case, then a) you're probably a lawyer or law student, and b) you should thank a critical legal studies theorist! We'll also get in depth with two of the founders of the CRT movement, Mari Matsuda and Kimberle Crenshaw. Learn what their unique contributions to legal scholarship were and are, and decide for yourself whether this is too dangerous for grad students to even read. Finally, we'll delve back into the one-man astroturf unit that is Christopher F. Rufo and learn how he's deliberately misleading everyone about what CRT is in order to stoke a moral panic. This is an episode you don't want to miss & might want to share even with your Uncle Frank! Finally, we do an Andrew Was Wrong on Arrow's Theorem as math professors rise up and storm our studio. Links We first discussed CRT in Episode 501; go check that out if you haven't yet. Andrew definitively stated that he was not a CRT theorist & believed there are right answers in the law in Episode 477 critiquing originalism. Florida's latest law is HB 233 on "intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity," which kind of contradicts the whole banning CRT thing. Check out Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic's "Rodrigo's Reappraisal" (2021). You can read Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) for yourself. The Rufo timeline we mentioned was published in the Wall Street Journal, and you can check out the text of Trump's executive order here. You can also read his garbage article in the NY Post... you know what? I'm not going to link that. He's terrible. You should definitely read Mari Matsuda's Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story (1989) and Kimberle Crenshaw's Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color from the 1991 Stanford Law Review. Finally, I would also recommend reading Aya Gruber's "Against Carceral Feminism" (2021). Appearances None! Have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law –Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
25-6-2021 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 13 seconden
OA501: Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory
If you've heard the buzz about Critical Race Theory lately, you... probably have absolutely no idea what it actually is because the people who have already passed laws in several states banning it don't even know. But if you've heard an informed person talk about it, you may have heard that it has its roots in the law. Well then, what better place to give you a deep dive than on a law show! So what is Critical Legal Studies? How did it pave the way for Critical Race Theory? OA is on the case! Links: Why are states lining up to ban critical race theory?, The Wedge Document, Critical Race Theory Briefing Book, Florida's New Law, Helms Stalls King's Day In Senate, Marxism, Understanding Marx, Understanding Modernism, Postmodernism, The Bridge: Critical Theory: CLS Movement, The skin trade Posner review
22-6-2021 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 38 seconden
OA500B: Bonus! Terrible Supreme Court Rulings; Machin's New Conditions
It's bonus OA!!! Andrew takes us through whatever the hell Manchin is trying to do with Republicans, then breaks down two Supreme Court rulings for us. Spoiler: they're terrible. Links: For the People Act of 2021, 19-123 Fulton v. Philadelphia, California v. Texas
20-6-2021 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 27 seconden
OA500: Eminent Domain!
500!!!! WOOOOOOO! It's time for the deep-dive we've been putting off for 5 years. Eminent domain! Links: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, Murr v. Wisconsin, 2017, Kelo v. City of New London, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, Pfizer To Close New London Headquarters
18-6-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 46 seconden
OA499: Mo Brooks Gets Served By Swalwell
... and then goes on unhinged Twitter rant full of bad law! We're here to break down just how obviously spurious his allegations are. Then, we address the tremendous amount of feedback we got on Christian Health Sharing Ministries. Some listeners tried to defend them, or at least claimed they got out ahead. Was Andrew wrong? Are they not a scam? Find out! Links: Institute for Christian Conciliation, Access to ICC Guidelines and Rules of Procedure, Commercial Arbitration Rules, weird handbook, cost of uncovered pregnancy, Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings, return affidavit, Mo Brooks raising campaign funds off wife getting served, Alabama Section 13A-7-2, 6-5-262, Rule 4. Summons
15-6-2021 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 3 seconden
OA498: The Garland DoJ Coverage is Completely Wrong
This episode is exactly why this show exists. Two stories about Merrick Garland's DoJ came out recently that gave the strong impression that Garland was defending Trump policies and even joining forces with religious bigots against LGBTQ rights. These stories are COMPLETELY misleading. As always with complicated legal stories, the truth faces a steep, uphill battle. Come along as Andrew explains why Garland is doing exactly what he should be, and would be doing even under a Bernie Sanders administration. In the first segment, we discuss the Women's Health Protection Act. Can it save us from the Supreme Court overturning Roe? Find out! Links: Manchin abortion record, Murkowski abortion record, 28 US Code § 2679 Westfall Act, Barr's first brief, E. Jean Carroll's response, CAIR v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (2006), DOJ Updates Filing, 20 US Code § 1681, Attorney General's Duty to Defend, The Indefensible Duty to Defend, Alliance defending freedom motion to intervene
11-6-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 57 seconden
OA497: Christian Health Sharing Is a Scam
Andrew stumbled across a Marketwatch article that recommended a Christian Health Sharing company to save money on health insurance. Due to this being a complete scam, Andrew was sent on a Liam Neeson-esque crusade. Let's just say he has a certain set of skills involving documents and research and deep-diving... Listen and find out why this is a scam, and why it still persists and is in fact being incentivized by our government! Yes the Biden one still! Whatever your belief system, PLEASE don't let yourself or anyone you know be taken in by this scam! Links: dumb Marketwatch article, Membership for Health Sharing Ministries Soars, Healthcare Sharing Ministries: Read the Fine Print, Buzzfeed coverage, Member Requirements, § 1501(d)(2)(B), 2016 IRS ruling, Trump EO 13877, 85 FR 35398, 26 CFR Part 1 - INCOME TAXES, NYT coverage
8-6-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 7 seconden
OA496: Stanford Law Forgets How Law Works
First story on today's show is the Chauvin motion for downward departure. The Judge said up to 30 years, Chauvin countered with "...how about a firm talking-to?" Andrew breaks down the (mostly terrible) arguments. Then, we talk about a conservative cancel culture story – a Stanford Law student put up an obviously satirical and hilarious flier roasting the Federalist Society and then was punished by the school. Listen for the details and some history on campus free speech! Links: The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Campus Hate Speech Codes, California Education Code § 94367, Corry v. Stanford, Stanford Flyer, Fed Society Complaint
4-6-2021 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 18 seconden
OA495: Mr. Fish Goes to Washington
Today we have special guest Nick Fish, president of American Atheists! He recently attended a meeting with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Is this administration doing a better job representing the millions of non-believers in the country? Find out! In the first segment, we discuss Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the free speech case you may have heard about on The Daily. Andrew gives us a more complete breakdown and offers a prediction as to how the ruling will go! Links: Tinker v. Des Moines, Hazelwood Indep. School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, BL v. Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist., 964 F.3d 170, Mahanoy Area School District v. BL oral arguments, Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships EO
1-6-2021 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 17 seconden
OA494: Florida's Pointless, Unconstitutional Social Media Law
I know I say this a lot but... this episode is action packed! So much good stuff to discuss that we had to squeeze in the Trump grand jury news into the announcements slot. Andrew breaks down what it means and what to expect. Then, a listener who actually worked on the NRA case wrote in to give us the final word on Sea Girt. But in our main segment, Andrew gives us the full breakdown on the asinine social media law Florida just passed. Eyes, look your last, because this thing is destined for the trash bin. Find out why! Then, we squeezed in a wildcard segment, if you can believe it. Did Alan Dershowitz win a defamation case against CNN? (no) Links: NRA Annual Matches Move To Sea Girt In 1892, 28 US Code § 1408, FL social media law, 47 U.S. Code § 230, Dershowitz v. CNN Order on MTD
28-5-2021 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 38 seconden
OA493: Is Fox News Guilty of Defamation? We Report, You Decide!
Today Andrew breaks down Fox's motion to dismiss the Dominion lawsuit. Dominion has mountains of evidence of defamation. Fox... disagREES. Find out how their defense holds up! We also talk about the surprisingly high number of delightful emails we got about Seagirt from Australians. And finally an Andrew was slightly wrong about some Asbestos bankruptcy stuff! Links: Dominion complaint, Fox motion to dismiss, NY CPLR Rule 3211, Coomer Colorado lawsuit, Newsmax retraction, another Newsmax retraction, Newsmax Withdraws False Claims About 2020 Election, Powell motion to dismiss, Dominion response
25-5-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 34 seconden
OA492: Court Locks Mississippi Citizens Out of Amending Their Own Constitution
This is not a misleading clickbait headline, this is literally what happened. Mississippi citizens passed a medical marijuana amendment and textualist conservative judges overruled it with a reading of the law so asinine that it rendered constitutional amendments by citizens impossible going forward. You have to hear the breakdown to even believe it. In the second segment, Andrew delivers some more real bad news out of the US Supreme Court. You likely heard about the abortion case, but Edwards v. Vannoy is a decision you didn't hear about that does not bode well.
21-5-2021 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 28 seconden
OA491: Letitia James – Kicking Ass and Taking Names
And two of those names are: Jacob Wohl and the NRA! It's a consequences show! While consequences might be an endangered species these days, Tish James shows us that species still has teeth. You may know Jacob Wohl as that right wing troll who absolutely should be in jail right now for any number of things, like fabricating blackmail material against Elizabeth Warren, for example. He's in big trouble for yet another criminally awful plot. Then, Andrew breaks down the recent bankruptcy decision regarding the NRA, and why it's bad news for them and good news for not them. Links: KKK act v Wohl, court order denying stay, James motion to intervene Wohl, Wohl opposing intervention, OA410: NY AG Files to Dissolve the NRA!, Order dismissing NRA bankruptcy
18-5-2021 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 16 seconden
OA490: Chauvin Sentencing – Four Aggravating Factors
Big updates in the Derek Chauvin case! First, the judge found four aggravating factors. This is what Andrew predicted, but not exactly the same four! Also, one of the other officers in the case has filed a motion alleging witness coercion. We break down what this means, and how worried we should be. In our first segment, we answer an excellent patron question about an old OA episode: What ever happened to the Arlene's Flowers case? We discussed it back on OA180, and Andrew Seidel made a prediction that held up very well. Finally, apportionmentcalculator.com has been fixed, and a listener gives us great info about Census Blocks! Links: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Docket for 17-108, Arlene's Flowers Remand, Thao motion, Federal indictments for all 4 cops, 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, Former Md. medical examiner's testimony for Chauvin defense leads to call for review of past cases, MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES, Aggravating factors filing Appearances None. Have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
14-5-2021 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 59 seconden
OA489: Transformers and Intellectual Property
Andrew is giggling like a school child right now as we present the deep-dive you didn't know you needed! It's transform...ing robots (not quite Transformers) and some really intricate IP law! It also involves Italian Trump! Before that, we have a correction on trademarking numbers, and some mini-dive into an Ugg lawsuit! Links: Ugg Lawsuit final order, 15 US Code § 1117 - Recovery for violation of rights, USD287037S - Changeable robot toy, 2003 Court Tokyo High Court Case, 2017 Arbitration, Macross Sequels and Films To Be Released Worldwide
11-5-2021 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 24 seconden
OA488: A New Trial for Chauvin?
You may have seen some alarming headlines about Chauvin's lawyers asking for a new trial over a juror being at a BLM rally, but do those alarming headlines hold up? Should we be concerned? Andrew has the full breakdown! Before that, we tackle a very interesting component of the census called the "differential privacy" method, and why it's the subject of a new lawsuit.
7-5-2021 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 21 seconden
OA487: How To Overturn Citizens United
All-star Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is at it again! In a Judiciary subcommittee meeting, Whitehouse laid out the groundwork for how a future Supreme Court could overturn Citizens United and Shelby County v. Holder. These are two atrocious decisions that would make even the Andrewest judge lament stare decisis, but today's episode explains how a court could overturn them without doing damage to court legitimacy going forward! (if you're into that kind of thing...) Before that, Andrew breaks down SCOTUS granting cert in the NYS Rifle & Pistol Assn v Corlett. Then, we tackle a listener email claiming we badly misrepresented defense attorneys in last Tuesday's show. Links: NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n. v. City of New York, N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f), Supreme Court of the United States opp brief, 2nd Circuit NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Beach, Cert Peition, Cert granted, Supreme Court Fact-Finding and the Distortion of American Democracy, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Citizens United, Civil Service Commission v. Nat’l Assn of Letter Carriers,
4-5-2021 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 57 seconden
OA486: Apportionment Might NOT Be Final
You all probably heard by now that NY lost a House seat by 89 people... But did they? Andrew argues that this has been misreported. Find out why! Along the way, find out way more than you ever wanted to about the math and Al Gore Rhythms behind apportionment! Also, Rudy Giuliani had some things taken in what shouldn't be called a "raid." Couldn't' have happened to a nicer obvious criminal! Then we answer some feedback on the previous episode, OA485: What If Your Client Tells You They’re Guilty? Links: OA307: Apportionment - The Census Fight Is Not Over, NPR 2020 Census Results, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Executive Order on the Census, 2020 Census Apportionment Results, 2 U.S. Code § 2b, Method of Equal Proportions, Reapportionment Under the 1950 Census, "Computing Apportionment," US Census Bureau, Model Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
30-4-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 7 seconden
OA485: What If Your Client Tells You They're Guilty?
... and other great questions from listeners! We get so many intelligent, thoughtful questions from our amazing listeners and patrons that we decided to do a show about it! Today's episode features 3 listener questions. First, what happens if your client tells you they're guilty? Next, a union leader asks if Janus v. AFSCME completely disregarded Garcetti v. Ceballos? Finally, can electors report fractional votes?
27-4-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 23 seconden
OA484: Chauvin Guilty! What To Expect Next
It's good news! Chauvin was found guilty on all 3 counts! Andrew breaks down what to expect with sentencing, and a number of interesting legal quirks along the way. Also, should we be worried about an appeal? What about the Maxine Waters comments? Find out! Links: State v. Martin, 211 N.W.2d 765 (Minn. 1973), MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES, Minn. Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, Sentencing Guidelines Grid, Sample PSI Report Vermont
23-4-2021 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 17 seconden
OA483: SCOTUS Grants Absurd Privilege to Churches in New Ruling
Andrew Seidel of the FFRF joins us to discuss the absolutely terrible SCOTUS decision in Tandon v. Newsom. As you might expect, it's a complete disgrace that further enshrines Christian Privilege into law, in total contradiction of Church State Separation.
20-4-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 38 seconden
OA482: Justice for Daunte Wright
Officer Kim Potter was charged with 2nd Degree Manslaughter in the killing of Daunte Wright. She claims she meant to fire her taser. Could she face more serious charges? Then, Andrew breaks down Maryland's Police Reform Bill. It's pretty good stuff, so naturally Democrats had to override the Republican Governor's veto. And finally, we've got a wildcard in which Sydney Powell responds to charges of incompetence with EVEN MORE INCOMPETENCE. Links: Andrew's Full Baseball Lecture, the slides, Kim Potter Charging Documents, Sec. 609.205 Man 2, MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES, Sec. 609.20 MN Man 1, MD SB71, SB178, HB670, Evers' brief, Powell Motion to Strike, Evers response, Powell motion to strike (actual motion)
16-4-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 56 seconden
OA481: Sanctions Motion Obliterates Sidney Powell
Governor Tony Evers is not messing around when it comes to Sidney Powell's evidence-free conspiracy nonsense. He has filed a motion for sanctions that just demolishes Powell for being a total hack, liar, and terrible lawyer. It's magnificent, and Andrew breaks it down for us! After that, we've got some follow up on Uzuegbunam v Preczewski (the one where Andrew sided with John Roberts.) Was Andrew wrong? Find out!
13-4-2021 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 31 seconden
OA480: Why Both Sides of the Chauvin Trial Cite Graham v. Connor
Today's show has everything you want from an OA episode! We start with some follow-up on the Originalism episodes. Second is a fascinating mini dive into Graham v. Connor and why both the defense and the prosecution of the Derek Chauvin Trial are citing it. Finally, we squeeze in an amazing wildcard segment about Jordan Peterson being Red Skull in the new Captain America comics!
9-4-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 53 seconden
OA479: No, Judges Should NOT Be Originalists, Part 2
A recent episode of the Rationally Speaking Podcast featured Originalist Law professor William Baude arguing for why judges should be originalist. Needless to say, it was not a good case and strawman arguments abounded. Andrew is here to give us part 2 of the deep-dive that will set the record straight on why originalism is still bad.
6-4-2021 • 1 uur, 32 minuten, 40 seconden
OA478: Why Biden's Judicial Picks Are Hardball
If you're looking for evidence that Joe Biden is ready and willing to play hardball and not give a shirt about Republican votes, his first batch of judicial nominees are a great example. Andrew breaks down for us why they signal that he isn't messing around! Before that, we discuss the 9th circuit decision Young v. Hawaii about open carry. Links: Memorandum on International Transgender Day of Visibility, Biden Announces Intent to Nominate 11 Judicial Candidates, Biden Won't Give ABA Advance Role in Vetting Judicial Nominees, ABA 2019 Report: Lawyer Demographics, Examining the Demographic Compositions of US Circuit and District Courts, Biden borrowed the Federalist Society's tactics
2-4-2021 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 3 seconden
OA477: No, Judges Should NOT Be Originalists
A recent episode of the Rationally Speaking Podcast featured Originalist Law professor William Baude arguing for why judges should be originalist. Needless to say, it was not a good case and strawman arguments abounded. Andrew is here to give us part 1 of the deep-dive that will set the record straight on why originalism is still bad. Then we've got Ace Associate Morgan Stringer on for some pop-law! She gives us the breakdown on the lawsuits filed against DeShaun Watson which allege sexual assault. Links: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Gamble Decision with Thomas quote
30-3-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 59 seconden
OA476: Sidney Powell's Defense Is Even Worse Than You Think
Sidney Powell's response to the Dominion Defamation suit is too batshirt to miss! Andrew brings us the full breakdown. Also, a jury has been selected in the Derek Chauvin trial so we've got some updates there. And finally, Andrew explains the gun control bills that have passed congress. Links: Dominion response to Powell motion to extend time, Dominion complaint, Powell motion to dismiss, Minn. Sentencing Guidelines, Batson v. Kentucky (1986), Jurors In Derek Chauvin's George Floyd Murder Trial, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, Texas mass shooting, Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021
26-3-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 34 seconden
OA475: Citibank's $900 Million Oopsie
It's a no takesies backsies deep dive! We all know the law is pretty reasonable and there's no way you get to keep millions of dollars that a bank wires you by accident, right? Wellllllll ordinarily yes, but sometimes no! Andrew's got the full breakdown on Citibank's big oopsie. Before that, we talk about Alan Dershowitz's (s)hit new podcast and how he's lying about the My Pillow guy. Links: OA198: What Is Alan Dershowitz Thinking?, Former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz is advising MyPillow CEO
23-3-2021 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 22 seconden
OA474: FBI "Faked" Kavanaugh Investigation?!
Remember sniveling weasel Brett Kavanaugh and the serious allegations against him by Dr. Ford and how he was "cleared" by an FBI investigation into the matter? Well according to Sheldon Whitehouse, that investigation might have been not just inadequate but perhaps FAKE. In our main story, Andrew breaks down the Ohio lawsuit attempting to block the American Rescue Plan. It involves a deep dive into anti-commandeering doctrine, which might not be what you think it is. Links: FBI facing allegation that its 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh was ‘fake’, Whitehouse Releases Letter to Garland on Oversight Matters, OLC Politicization, Ohio attorney general sues Biden administration over $1.9 trillion stimulus
19-3-2021 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 53 seconden
OA473: In Praise of John Roberts and Joe Manchin?!
You read that right, and no it's not opposite day! At least... I don't think it is. Anyway, Manchin has said some things about the filibuster that are incredibly encouraging! We've got the full breakdown and a mini filibuster dive for you. Then in our main segment, Andrew breaks down a decision in which Roberts dissented from the entire court... and in Andrew's opinion, he has it right! Links: Brookings.edu, "The History of the Filibuster,", 19-968 Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
16-3-2021 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 7 seconden
OA472: The American Rescue Plan - You Made This Happen!
It's here! The 1.9 trillion dollar package is officially passed! If you are one of the many listeners who donated time or money to getting Democrats to 50 seats, you truly did make this happen. Andrew did all the reading so you don't have to! He breaks down what's in this incredibly progressive plan. Before that, we respond to lots of people asking "Didn't Republicans fire the parliamentarian in 2000?" This objection to our minimum wage episode completely falls flat for several reasons. Links: WaPo Parliamentarian Article, Lott to Oust Senate Parliamentarian Who Ruled Against GOP, WaPo How big is the Biden stimulus bill?
12-3-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 28 seconden
OA471: Republican Lawyer Shouts Quiet Part on Voting Rights
At oral arguments before the Supreme Court, a lawyer for Republicans admitted that eliminating voting restrictions would put Republicans at a 'competitive disadvantage.' Will this startling admission jeopardize the case for Republicans? Find out! Before that, we cover some good news and bad news. Bad first - the Texas EO on masking is worse than you thought. Good news - HR1 the Equality Act is amazingly good legislation! It's the jam packed Tuesday deep-dive you've come to expect from us! Links: TX Executive Orders GA-32 and GA-34, TX Code 418, TX Executive Order GA-10, State Voting Bills Tracker 2021, Georgia HB 531, [Brnovich v. DNC] Consolidated Oral Argument, 52 U.S. Code § 10301
9-3-2021 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 22 seconden
OA470: Can Harris Just Overrule the Parliamentarian?
Leftist publications like Jacobin have been excoriating the Biden administration, and specifically VP Harris, for not simply overruling the Senate Parliamentarian to force the $15 minimum wage through. They argue this is something Republicans definitely would do if the situation were reversed. So... is all that true? Andrew is here to break it down for us! Links: The Hill Cruz: Let's overrule Senate officer to expand ObamaCare bill, Rules Of The Senate, 2 US Code Chapter 17, Byrd Rule 2 US Code § 644, The Tax Legislative Process: A Byrd's Eye View, Andrew's favorite plan
5-3-2021 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 56 seconden
OA469: The Batshirt Crazy 'Latinos for Trump' Lawsuit
Hooooo boy, have we got some legal craziness for you fine listeners! Disgraced lawyer who Instagramed his participation in an insurrection has filed a lawsuit that is essentially Latinos for Trump and a few other groups v. EVERYONE. Andrew had way too much fun diving into it! Before that, we have quite the deep-dive on hearsay related to a recent T3BE question. Turns out you can't kill witnesses to get away with stuff? Who knew! Links: Rule 801. Exclusions from Hearsay, Rule 802, Rule 803, Rule 804, Find A Lawyer | Paul MacNeal Davis, Goosehead Insurance, Sollenberger Tweet, Gondor has no King nonsense, Court sua sponte motion, amended complaint, Davis fire by basically everyone, LFT asks for more time, LFT motion for fees, supporting exhibit
2-3-2021 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 29 seconden
OA468: SCOTUS News! Trump's Taxes, Affirmative Action, and Title X
Normally we're bracing ourselves every time there's SCOTUS news, but this time there's actually some good! Cy Vance HAS TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS. Ok that's pretty much the end of the unambiguously good news. But listen in as Andrew gives us the expert analysis on the anti-affirmative action case and the Title X case! Before that, we talk about what elections actually would have looked like under Lessig's proportional system from last episode. The results are very fascinating! Yay spreadsheets! We finish off with a quick answer to the question, "could the Senate have voted anonymously on impeachment?" Links: 2021 Cornelius Vanderbroek Memorial Essay Competition for Law School Students, Maryland FBA Essay Contest, BBC Facebook v Australia: Who blinked first?, Daily Kos How minority rule plagues Senate, Andrew's Spreadsheet, CNN Trump's tax returns turned over to Manhattan district attorney, Mayor v. Azar, 973 F.3d 258, California v. Azar, 950 F.3d 1067, 42 US Code § 18114 - Access to therapies
26-2-2021 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 56 seconden
OA467: Demolishing the Electoral College, with Lawrence Lessig
Harvard Law Professor and activist Lawrence Lessig joins us to talk about his ongoing efforts to get rid of the Electoral College. It's a war being fought on multiple fronts, but Professor Lessig's current effort is to force states to assign delegates proportionally. The all or nothing system we have now is not actually written into the Constitution. Listen in for the full breakdown! Links: Rodriguez v. Newsom cert petition, Baten v. McMaster, 967 F.3d 345
23-2-2021 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 23 seconden
OA466: Opening Arguments Blocked in Australia?!
Why is the OA Facebook page blocked in Australia? Well, it's not just us, it's every news page! We've got the deep dive into why Facebook is blocking us and why Google isn't, even though they were targeted by the same law. Before that, we take a look at a truly terrible bill out of South Carolina that is going to be model legislation in a post-Roe America. It's every bit as anti-choice as you think and then some. Finally, a look at an absurd and pathetic attempt by Georgia Republicans to shield Trump from likely indictment by amending the constitution! Texas Resources: Warming Centers – TDEM, Warming centers in Texas: How to find them, get help and help others, Live Doc with resources, TEXAS WEATHER CRISIS ASSISTANCE Links: Overview of Fetal Development, Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe, AUS Digital Platforms Inquiry rpt, News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 – Parliament of Australia, News Corp and Google Agree To Global Partnership, Changes to Sharing and Viewing News on Facebook in Australia, Georgia General Assembly - SR 100, 2021 Cornelius Vanderbroek Memorial Essay Competition for Law School Students, Maryland FBA Essay Contest
19-2-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 31 seconden
OA465: The Fight to Unionize at Amazon
Today's show is a fascinating deep-dive into one Amazon facility's efforts to unionize, and the implications it has on the entire company! After that, we have an update on the Senate power sharing agreement. Committee assignments galore! Links: Amazon workers begin voting in landmark US union push, Amazon Workers in Delaware Reject Union Effort, Amazon has avoided unions for 25 years, Amazon 18-month non-competes, Amazon's Secret Program to Spy On Workers, Amazon training videos coach Whole Foods staff on how to discourage unions, Amazon: ‘They Work You to Death’, Amazon NLRB Case, National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq, Signed RC petition, Amazon response, Amazon has lost its bid to delay Alabama union vote, NLRB petitions report, Res 27 power sharing, 2001 version S. RES. 8
16-2-2021 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 58 seconden
OA464: Impeachment 2 Secret of the Ooze
In case you missed it, our 45th president led a violent insurrection about a month ago and now it's up to Democrats to convince a bunch of Republicans... who were there... that it happened. Andrew is here to break it all down for us! Also, some other criminal president updates as the Georgia Sec of State opens an investigation into Trump's election meddling there. Links: NYT Georgia Officials Review Trump's Phone Call to Raffensperger, Georgia Prosecutors Open Criminal Inquiry Into Trump's Efforts to Subvert Election, DA Preservation letters, Christine Resigns, impeachment schedule, Res 47 Adopted 2/9, Donald Trump Speech "Save America" Rally Transcript January 6, 18 US Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS
12-2-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 50 seconden
OA463: Why Cases Against Robinhood Will Fail
Ace Associate Morgan Stringer is here to throw some cold water on the cases against Robinhood in the GameStop fiasco. Why are they doomed? Find out! Before that we cover a grab bag of good news items including the DOJ dropping the Yale lawsuit, federal student debt cancelation, and Virginia abolishing the death penalty. Are you tired of positivity yet? Links: OA219: Harvard and Affirmative Action, Warren and Schumer Resolution, 20 US Code § 1082, Virginia Senate passes death penalty abolition bill
9-2-2021 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 11 seconden
OA462: Rittenhouse Team Commits Perjury; DC Statehood and Impeachment!
This is a jam-packed, extra-length show that covers as many of the pressing stories in the news that we could cover! We begin with the breaking news that Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers perjured themselves by filing a fraudulent address in defiance of a court order; we tell you why that's bad and what's next for the domestic terrorist. After that, it's time for a lengthy breakdown of the DC Statehood Bill, including a discussion of the potential future legal challenges (and solutions!) as well as the timing for when we can expect 2 new Senators to be seated! Then, it's time to break down former President Trump's (laughably bad) response to the Article of Impeachment. Phew! Links You can check out Rittenhouse's brief in opposition to the bond increase. Here is the full text of the DC Statehood Bill introduced by Tom Carper. You will not believe how bad the lawyering is in former President Trump's (laughably bad) response to the Article of Impeachment, and you can also read the Inquirer article on Trump's new lawyer, Bruce Castor, who seems like a real peach. Appearances None, have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
5-2-2021 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 38 seconden
OA461: SO MUCH WINNING!
Today's episode focuses on two major victories that many on our side have maybe been afraid of cheering on -- first, the agreement between Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell on a power-sharing arrangement that will enable legislation to come out of equally-divided Senate committees, and second, the impeachment vote of 55-45 that the Senate has jurisdiction over Trump's impeachment. We'll tell you why these are real victories worth celebrating and break down some Senate Rules while we're at it! Then, we have an inspiring interview with Ruben Amaya, a 19-year-old running for the Maryland House of Delegates. Links Yes, we're aware of the Latinos for Trump lawsuit; it's crazy and hilarious and we'll be covering it in some way, we promise! On the Senate rules: (a) go read Rules XXV, XXVI 7(a)(3), or any other rule for yourself; (b) check out the 2001 plan (S.R. 8); and then (c) read this CRS report explaining "filling up the amendment tree." On impeachment, you'll want to read Brian Kalt's seminal 2001 Law Review article. Finally, if you'd like to check out Ruben Amaya's campaign, head on over to his website at rubenamaya.org! Appearances None, have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
2-2-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 18 seconden
OA460: Did the Courts Really "Refuse to Hear Trump's Evidence" of Voter Fraud? (No.)
We're very proud of this show, in which you can sit down your Uncle Frank who's repeating the kind of nonsense Rand Paul spouted this weekend -- that "all the court cases just dismissed Trump's lawsuits on standing and never evaluated the evidence" -- and show that it is an out-and-out lie. It's not true. And we think even Uncle Frank will have to reluctantly concede that by the end of the episode. Links: This is the terrible Gateway Pundit article by Joe Hoft whose claims we thoroughly debunk. Please don't click on it. Please do feel free to click on the polling averages at 538 or Gallup which show that the "wildly popular" President Trump averaged a 41% approval rating. This is the main spreadsheet Hoft relies on for his "81 cases." Cases (from the spreadsheet): Trump v. Boockvar, 20-00966 (W.D. Pa.): You can check out the CLOSED DOCKET with 574 entries, and then read the 138-page opinion clearly addressing the merits of Trump's voting arguments. Trump v. Way, 3:20-cv-10753-MAS-ZNQ (D.N.J.): Check out the CLOSED DOCKET. In re Canvassing Observation No. 7003 (Penn. Ct. Common Pleas.) -- here's the state court ruling on sneezing; In re Canvassing Observation, No. 1094 CD 2020 (Penn. Comm. Ct.) -- and yes, that's the same case on appeal -- and here's the only Trump win; Trump v. Boockvar, 20-02078 (M.D.Pa.): This is the 11/21 opinion addressing the merits of Trump's efforts to throw out the entire state's vote. In re Canvass of Absentee and Mail-in Ballots (Pa. state consolidated cases): Here's the ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that "no fraud or irregularity has been alleged." Trump v. Boockvar, 20-3371 (3d Cir); here's the docket showing that this appeal was closed on Nov. 27, 2020; and also Here's the Order dismissing out other shenanigans. The case is closed! Trump v. Biden, No. 2020CV007092 (Wis. Super. Ct.) -- this was Trump's challenge to the recount in Milwaukee and Madison; and here's the proof that the docket was closed. Trump v. Biden, No. 2020AP2038 (Wis.) -- you can read the Wisconsin Supreme Court's 82-page consolidated appeal addressing the merits of Trump's voter fraud claims. Trump v. Toulouse Oliver, No. 20-01289 (N.M.) -- you can read Trump's motion to dismiss his own First Amended Complaint. Trump v. Boockvar - you can read Trump's cert petition in the Pennsylvania consolidated cases, and view the Supreme Court's summary rejection of Trump's motion to expedite. Finally, Trump v. Biden -- you can also read Trump's cert petition in the Wisconsin case, and the Supreme Court's similar summary denial of Trump's motion to expedite. And that's it! Appearances None, have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
29-1-2021 • 1 uur, 25 minuten, 31 seconden
OA459: Trump's 143 Pardons - the Good, the Bad, the WTF?
Andrew went through the ENTIRE list of 143 people pardoned by Trump in his final act as president, and he's got the full breakdown for us! He also answers some questions on a lot of people's minds - Can pardons be revoked? And could Trump have 'secret pardoned' himself? Listen and find out! Links: Legal Eagle Can Pardons Be Revoked or Rescinded?, 1937 Fordham article The Pardoning Power, Rose's notes on the Constitution 1904, Trump's Pardons, 44 US Code § 2201, 44 U.S. Code § 2203
26-1-2021 • 1 uur, 15 minuten
OA458: Biden's Amazing First Day
In case you missed it, we have a president now! Andrew gives us the full deep dive on his first day in office and all the harm reduction the administration has already achieved! Links: All the Biden Executive Orders, Trump's stupid Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs and Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda and Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees, Board of Scientific Counselors - ATSDR, Trump Promoting the Rule of Law order, Executive Order 13,891 Sub-Regulatory Guidance Document Portal Tops 70,000 Entries, 18 U.S. Code § 207, FACT SHEET: President-elect Biden's Day One Executive Actions
22-1-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 3 seconden
OA457: Lin Wood Smacked Down by Judge; Interview with Jamil Favors!
More consequences! This time it's for Lin Wood, absolute clownhorn and terrible attorney responsible for some of the worst election suits. A judge in Delaware issued him quite the smackdown, by lawyer standards. Then we talk with Jamil Favors, who you will remember from our Georgia Election Fundraiser! Jamil was the Deputy Voter Protection Director for the DSCC. We talk about how election night went for him and also what the future holds. Which state might be the next Georgia? Links: Page sues Oath, Inc, Wannabe Biglaw Firm Closes Its Doors, Dallas-Based Attorney To Represent Kenosha Shooter, Lin Wood Argues Kenosha Shooting Was Justified By … Second Amendment?, Delaware Judge sua sponte order, Judge glorious smackdown
19-1-2021 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 48 seconden
OA456: Insurrections Have Consequences
Due to recent political victories and incredible hard work, consequences DO exist! First, Andrew breaks down that viral tweet which really misrepresented what the results of an impeachment conviction would be. While there will be consequences if Trump is convicted, the viral tweet doesn't capture it correctly. But that's not all! Many people have been talking about using the 14th amendment to expel traitorous Republicans, but Andrew is here to... CONFIRM THAT WE CAN! It's great news, and the case history is super fascinating. Links: The resolution, 25th amendment resolution, former presidents act, 3 US Code § 102, 14th Amendment history, FORGOTTEN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF TREASON, Morton Stavis, Berger v. U.S., 255 U.S. 22 (1921), Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), Voting and Vice: Criminal Disenfranchisement and the Reconstruction Amendments, The Forgotten Constitutional Law of Treason, Standard Form 86, @NatlSecCnslrs
15-1-2021 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 19 seconden
OA455: Trump is Going to Prison in Georgia
Just when you think shows can't get any more positive, we've got another happy one for ya! It's perfect phone call #2 (that we know about) and Andrew thinks there is a rock solid case for Trump for prison! Before that we discuss Marcus's motion to withdraw. He wrote a conspiracy BS article in the Federalist that we can't even link on Twitter because it gets blocked. Links: Trumps full phone call, Turley: It’s legally absurd to claim Trump committed crime in call with Georgia election officials, Georgia Code 21-2-604, 21-2-562, § 45-11-1
12-1-2021 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 9 seconden
OA454: GEORGIA!!! (oh and a fascist coup)
We are SO happy about the election results in Georgia that not even that fascist scum who invaded our nation's capitol can keep us down! Today Andrew gives us a refresher on the 25th Amendment, we also discuss the timing of the Senate seats and when they take effect. On the treason side of things, the Gohmert lawsuit was dismissed. Then we gush about the Georgia news and share some tear-jerking stories of how our listeners came through in a huge way for Democracy! Links: Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) publicly called for 25th, OLC memo 1985
8-1-2021 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 45 seconden
Sedition Special with Andrew Torrez and Allison Gill
This has been a truly disgusting day in American history and we felt the need to do an emergency live stream special. Here's the audio!
7-1-2021 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 18 seconden
OA453: Treason's Greetings
Nearly a dozen Republican Senators including Hawley and Cruz are still planning on trying to overthrow the results of the election. The exact same election results that, you know, elected many of them. Andrew gives us the quick breakdown of that and explains why it isn't going to work. We also discuss comparisons to 2004 and 2016. Our main segment is a classic OA Signature Deep-Dive (tm) on litigation hold letters, inspired by the very aggressive one sent by Dominion to star Giuliani witness Melissa Carrone. As much as she may deserve scorn, Andrew argues that Dominion is perhaps crossing a line with this letter. Find out why! Links: 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, 2004 Electoral College Results, Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes - Jan 6, 2005, Dominion lawyers sent this BRUTAL letter to Mellissa Carrone
5-1-2021 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 49 seconden
OA452: Another "Expert" Witness Unmasked; Bernie's Filibuster Explained
Tons of info in today's New Year's show! First we take a look at Trump's horrendously corrupt pardons, focusing on his attempt to pardon Paul Manafort's money back to him! Then we give you the breakdown on the latest Sidney Powell "expert" to be unmasked. Hope you're sitting down... she's NOT qualified in any way. Finally we talk about what's going on with the COVID relief bill and the National Defense Authorization Act. Far left publications have been critical of Senate Democrats, but Andrew explains why this is completely bad faith. Links: Legal Eagle The Political Depravity of Unjust Pardons, Manafort Pardon, Ex parte Garland 71 U.S. 333 (1866), Terpsichore Affidavit, WaPo Sidney Powell secret witness is Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman, her prior fraud, Veto Override Procedure in the House and Senate, Ohio Senator Brown Joins Sanders in Delaying Senate Holiday Over $2K Stimulus Checks
1-1-2021 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 44 seconden
OA451: Section 230 and Tulsi's Transphobia
Today's show involves two bills that Tulsi has introduced... BUT NOT BOTHERED TO WRITE. For real. They are entirely for vice-signaling purposes and contain no substance. However, Andrew is here to give us a deep dive on what the implications and background are. One involves Section 230 (which Andrew has been dying to tell us about!) and the other is about trans-women and sports. It's... no good. We contrast Tulsi's garbage with an important trans-rights decision. So, it's a good news ending! Links: 47 U.S. Code § 230, Reps. Gabbard & Gosar Introduce ‘Break Up Big Tech’ Bill, Tulsi's Bill H.R.8922 has no text, Reps. Gabbard and Mullin Introduce Bill to Ensure Title IX Protections for Women and Girls in Sports, H.R.8932 also has no text.
29-12-2020 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 11 seconden
Bonus: Andrew and AG QnA!
Andrew and AG from Mueller She Wrote teamed up for a QnA to test a new platform and we thought it would be fun to share here! Note: because Thomas wasn't involved, the audio quality is terrible. Yes this is Thomas typing this. But, it's workable and who doesn't love listening to Andrew and AG! They discuss Trump's corrupt pardons, the NAACP suing Trump for violating the Ku Klux Klan Act, and more!
27-12-2020 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 3 seconden
OA450: A Christmas Deep-Dive into the COVID Bill
HO HO HOOOOOOOOOrribly inadequate stimulus checks! The omnibus spending bill is still in limbo as a result of Trump's veto, but Andrew still has the deep dive on what's in this 5600 page monstrosity! It's not great, but there are reasons to be positive on the improvements made over the last bill. Also Andrew tells us what's going on with the "Red Slime" lawsuits against some Fox News personalities who spread misinformation about voting machines. Links: Our amazing fundraiser!, new bill, house amendment to the bill, Red Slime lawsuit filed in CO, The ‘Red Slime’ Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media
25-12-2020 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 42 seconden
OA449: OA vs. Randall Eliason, Part 2!
Recently, friend of the show Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post that got a ton of pushback. We voiced our strong disagreement to it on OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump. We're very pleased to have Randall on the show to have a lively debate on the topic! Make sure to listen to part 1 if you haven't heard it yet! Appearances Andrew did QnA on my new game channel, check it out here! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
21-12-2020 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 7 seconden
OA448: Secret Expert Witness "Spyder" is Dude Named Josh
COME WATCH OUR LIVESTREAM TO "GRAB 'EM BY THE GAVEL" AND TAKE BACK THE SENATE! Sunday at 4pm eastern! Donate here! In what will surprise no one who listens to this show, Sidney Powell's double secret expert military intelligence witness on election theft is.... a dude named Josh who is actually none of those things. Andrew takes us through the latest from the top notch legal team trying to overturn the election, and how it differs from actual lawsuits filed in Georgia for good reasons. Links: Spyder affidavits, FRE rule 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), WaPo: Sidney Powell’s secret ‘military intelligence expert,’ key to fraud claims in election lawsuits, never worked in military intelligence, real law suits: Plaintiff, v. MIKE KAPLAN, SU20CV0594, 20-CV-003112, 2020V123366K, Calendar law: Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-385, § 21-2-14
18-12-2020 • 58 minuten, 24 seconden
OA447: OA vs. Randall Eliason on Indicting Trump
Recently, friend of the show Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post that got a ton of pushback. We voiced our strong disagreement to it on OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump. We're very pleased to have Randall on the show to have a lively debate on the topic! We went so long that there is a part 2 airing next week! Make sure to become a patron and gain access to part 2 very early!
14-12-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 19 seconden
OA446: Republicans Obliterate the Constitution in Texas v. Pennsylvania
There aren't words harsh enough to describe how disgusting, anti-American, and undemocratic the Texas v. Pennsylvania complaint is. Believe me, I checked my thesaurus. 18 Republican attorneys general have joined in this horrific, garbage attempt to keep their emperor Trump in power despite the wishes of 80+ million voters. We get Andrew's deep-dive, as he's as angry as he's ever been (which sounds pretty much like normal Andrew.) Before that, we talk about the closing of the Flynn case, and how Opening Arguments is now super famous for having influenced Judge Sullivan! Links: Flynn final order, compare p 21 with our brief, Texas v. Pennsylvania, Arizona v. California, Arizona insane amicus brief, Trump motion to intervene, terrible constitutional attorneys amicus, Foster v. Love
11-12-2020 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 31 seconden
OA445: SCOTUS Gives Churches the Right to Spread COVID
According to the new fundamentalist majority on the Supreme Court, churches have the right to spread COVID as much as they damn well please and no one is allowed to tell them otherwise. Andrew Seidel is back on the show to give the full breakdown of just how terrible Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo is.
8-12-2020 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 43 seconden
OA444: Going Out of Business Pardon Sale
Trump is looking poised to pardon everything not nailed down on his way out of the White House. You've got pardons in exchange for bribes, run-of-the-mill corrupt pardons, preemptive pardons(?), family pardons, and god knows what else. Andrew breaks it all down for us! Also an update on state certification (IT'S OVER, BEAST!) Links: Election results certification dates 2020, Court filing on DOJ pardon investigation, Trump Has Discussed With Advisers Pardons for His 3 Eldest Children and Giuliani, Can Trump Pre-emptively Pardon Allies or Himself? Clemency Power, Explained, Flynn Pardon, Clint Lorance pardon, FIRST BLACK ARMY OFFICER IS PARDONED BY CLINTON
4-12-2020 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 23 seconden
OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump
Friend of the show Randall Eliason wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post called "The case against indicting Trump." Both of us on the show strongly disagree with the arguments presented and humbly submit our enthusiastic rebuke of it. Before that, Andrew answers the clickbaity question of whether or not Trump made a major mistake in pardoning Flynn. As with all clickbait, the answer is no. Finally, we briefly touch on the terrible new decision out of the Amy Coney Barrett era that is our new hell. Links: Last election nail, Biden hopes to avoid divisive Trump investigations, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses Seventh Edition May 2007, REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE, 20A87 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (11/25/2020)
1-12-2020 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 57 seconden
OA442: Lindsey Graham Is A Criminal
Happy Thanksgiving! Just like the criminals of the Trump era, Opening Arguments never stops. Just as we went to record, Trump pardoned Flynn via Tweet. Andrew gives us his thoughts on that. Then we cover a couple more things Andrew was right about that should reduce your blood pressure a little! (and one thing that might raise it..) Our main segment is about how Lindsey Graham likely broke several laws in his attempts to influence the vote counting in this election. What's more, there are several things we can do about it! Find out! Links: 3rd Circuit letter, GSA ascertainment letter, Election results certification dates, 2020, OA325: Putin's Puppet? The Open Skies Treaty, Trump administration pulls out of Open Skies treaty with Russia, False Positive Rate for Signature Matching, 52 US Code § 10307 - Prohibited acts, 52 US Code § 10308 - Civil and criminal sanctions, 2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 21 - ELECTIONS, 2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 45 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, US Senate: About Expulsion, No Senator Has Been Expelled Since 1862
27-11-2020 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 7 seconden
OA441: Trump Still Lost
He still lost, folks! It's over. In our main segment today, we discuss the Electoral College calendar and when things are finally set in stone. But what about faithless electors??? We've got an Andrew for that too. This episode should help you feel fine about the fact that Trump still lost. In the first segment we talk about a few things Andrew nailed his predictions on, including Chad Wolf and Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. Links: Chad Wolf not lawfully appointed, Chris Krebs, List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump, OA420: DoJ Defending Trump in Carroll Case?, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick on Twitter: "She is also the wife of Chad Mizelle", OA379: Trump's Contempt for the Press & Husch Blackwell, Trump campaign agrees to drop its defamation lawsuit against a tiny Wisconsin TV station, The Electoral College, Election results certification dates, 2020, Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-648 (2019).
24-11-2020 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 36 seconden
OA440: Rudy's Literal Meltdown
Rudy Giuliani is as bad at being a lawyer as he is at wearing a believable human suit. Both of these shortcomings were on full display this week as Trump's top lawyer continued to not only lose case after case, but also display an impressive ability to not have any idea what any legal term actually means. Also in this episode, Andrew tells us about the Kim Davis of this election - GSA Administrator Emily Murphy. Murphy can't seem to understand which number is bigger than the other. Then ace associate Morgan Stringer joins us to provide a few highlights of Giuliani's insane ramblings. She listened so that none of us have to! Links: 3 U.S.C. 102, CFPB Announces Additional Member of Taskforce, The Law of Presidential Transitions and the 2000 Election, Lawsuit tracker: Trump’s battle faces skepticism from judges, Marks v. Stinton.
20-11-2020 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 55 seconden
OA439: The End of the Lemon Test?
It's a 97% Trump-free episode! First we have to cover the bullet points Andrew foolishly thought we could get to last week, including questions like: does a 50-50 Senate mean no more Majority Leader McConnell? and what consequences should there be for law firms that take Trump's money and file frivolous election lawsuits? and more! Then we get to the main signature deep dive, and it's not a happy one. ***content note: this episode contains discussion of sexual assault.*** Some Jehovah's Witnesses church leaders emotionally abused a rape victim, who was a minor, and she very justifiably sued them. But the backwards-ass Mormon judges of Utah conveniently decided churches can do... whatever. While this is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court, it also might damage Church-State Separation along the way. Links: Jones Day Statement Regarding Election Litigation, Snell & Wilmer withdraws from election lawsuit, Jehovah's Witnesses Lawsuit, Court hears case of woman suing Utah Jehova's Witnesses over rape audio.
17-11-2020 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 51 seconden
OA438: This Coup Shall Pass
While it cannot be overstated how disgusting, unpatriotic, anti-American, and anti-Democratic this pathetic coup attempt by Trump and Republicans is, it also has no chance of working. At least, according to our resident optimist, Andrew Torrez! Before that, Andrew gives us the breakdown on the Affordable Care Act case, and why the media might be completely wrong in how they're covering it. Links: California v. Texas, best Trump case still terrible, Montgomery County Election Results, 25 P.S. § 3150.16, 25 P.S. § 3150.14, In re Recount of Ballots (Pa. 1974)
13-11-2020 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 47 seconden
OA437: How To Play Hardball If We Don't Win the Senate
As always, we can't emphasize enough how important it is to win the two Georgia runoffs, but today's show covers why we COULD still win in North Carolina. It involves court thingies. Then in the main segment, Andrew tells us how exactly Biden can play hardball in the event that we don't win the Senate. There's still a lot we can do. Biden's administration had better be show listeners because this is top notch free legal consulting! Links: 4th Cir. on North Carolina Ballots, Wise v. Circosta, OA415: DeJoy's Illegal Dismantling of the USPS, NAACP v USPS, 5 US Code § 3345 - Acting officer, 15-1251 NLRB v. SW General, Inc, 5 US Code § 3346 - Time limitation, 5 US Code § 3349a - Presidential inaugural transitions, 5 US Code § 3349c - Exclusion of certain officers, Fed Figures 2014: Federal Workforce, Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce, As of September 30, 2010, L.M.-M., et al., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI II, Legality of Service of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, OA61: Flyin' the Friendly Skies
10-11-2020 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 46 seconden
OA436: It's A Runoff!
Biden is all but assured victory, and despite the election not going nearly as well as we'd hoped, there's still a chance to take the Senate! However, Trump is throwing every terrible legal challenge he's got at the problem. Andrew breaks down why they're all incredibly stupid and doomed to fail. Links: SIO263: Not the Worst Possible Outcome, But Close, Slate - A Large Portion of the Electorate Chose the Sociopath, Georgia Code § 21-2-501, Trump lawsuit Michigan, Trump's lawsuit Pennsylvania, Trump Lawsuit Georgia, OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.), Wisconsin Statutes § 9.01 (2019) — Recount, Georgia Code § 21-2-495 (2019) - Procedure for recount or recanvass of votes, 2019 Georgia Code: Contested Elections and Primaries.
6-11-2020 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 38 seconden
Bonus: Harris County Update, Good News!
This is an emergency mini-episode in which Andrew breaks down all the events surrounding Hotze v. Hollins, which is the case involving Republican efforts to throw out 127,000 early votes in Harris County, Texas – which has nearly five million people and includes almost all of the city of Houston. It’s (mostly) good news, and we go through all the appellate stuff, too. Stay an Optimist Prime today! Links: Hotze v. Hollins order by District Court Judge Hanen. Plaintiff’s request for emergency relief in the 5th Circuit. News story re: 7 Pennsylvania counties that won’t count mail-in votes on Election Night
3-11-2020 • 18 minuten, 28 seconden
OA435: Why Your Vote Matters In EVERY State!
That's right, EVERY state. So if you, or anyone you know, is doing the "eh my vote doesn't matter because I'm in x state" NO. STOP. Listen to this episode and share it with that person who needs it! It really matters! Links: Congressional Elections in Presidential Years: Presidential Coattails and Strategic Voting, Why Pennsylvania’s Vote Count Could Change After Election Night, How election votes and data for 2020 are collected at NBC news, Head of Fox News Decision Desk: Why results in swing states likely won't be known on election night, Control Of Redistricting Is Up For Grabs In 2020.
3-11-2020 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 4 seconden
OA434: Kavanaugh's Crooked Concurrence
Kavanaugh, in a disgrace of an opinion, just signaled that he and enough of his fellow hack justices are willing and able to hand a disputed election to Trump. Andrew has the full breakdown, and what we can do to stop it. But that last part is very obvious: vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote. IT IS NOW TOO LATE TO MAIL IN YOUR BALLOT. So in the first segment, we go over every which way you still are able to vote even if you've got a mail-in ballot you have yet to drop in the mailbox. Links: Even Fox News says results won't be know on election night, I Will Vote.com, Slate - Naked ballots, signature mismatch, and other pitfalls to avoid when voting by mail, NYT How Long Will Vote Counting Take? Estimates and Deadlines in All 50 States, Wisconsin §6.86(6), OA425: 'The Election That Could Break America' ???, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News, Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election, Supreme Court 2020 Opinions not up currently for some reason, How to Accommodate a Massive Surge in Absentee Voting, Lawfare blog Reducing One Source of a Potential Election Meltdown, North Carolina Injunctive Relief Denied.
30-10-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 25 seconden
OA433: Google Antitrust and Purdue Pharma Plea
It's a Tr*** free day here at OA! Not even one mention of that entity. It's all about some major stories in the law. Google has been sued by the DoJ and a number of individual states for unlawfully maintaining monopolies for search services. And Purdue Pharma has reached a plea agreement involving billions of dollars. One of these is good and the other... isn't... Listen to the Andrew Torrez Mr. Fantastic Signature Breakdown to found out! Links: Google Complaint, 15 US Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony, Purdue Pharma plea deal
27-10-2020 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 26 seconden
OA432: Trump Accidentally Declassifies Russia Docs?!
In a steroid-induced haze, Trump may have inadvertently declassified all Russia documents by Tweeting: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!” BuzzFeed News jumped on the opportunity and took Trump to court. Andrew has the full break down! Before that, we talk about updates in the E. Jean Carroll case. That case centers around the (for some reason) difficult question of whether or not slandering your own sexual assault victim is somehow within your job duties as President. Links: OA420: DoJ Defending Trump in Carroll Case?, Carroll's opposition, Trump reply, Oral argument scheduled for 10/21, BuzzFeed v DoJ, Leopold Reply, ACB responses to QFR, Senate Rule III, Pennsylvania decision, Alabama decision
23-10-2020 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 31 seconden
OA431: Here's How We Can Still Save the Census
The Trump administration was given a victory in the courts regarding the census. It's absolutely bad news, but Andrew has a plan for that! Ok, ok, it was Elizabeth Warren's plan, but Andrew breaks it down for us! It's a one weird trick that actually will work, assuming that we win in November. Before that, we've got yet another Mazars update. It's going exactly how Andrew told us it would go, and that's... not great but also not bad. Links: Trump v Mazars application for stay, US v R Enterprises porn case again, Ross v. National Urban League, Warren's Census plan, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Mid-Decade Census, 2015 Census.
20-10-2020 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 38 seconden
OA430: Amy Coney Barrett Is Terrible
Andrew watched the hearings so you don't have to! What is super-precedent? And did ACB really rule that an employer using the n-word wasn't hostile or racist? We've got the full breakdown! Before that, we have an excellent listener question on potential federal laws on things like Roe V Wade after the Handmaid's Tale Court takes away reproductive rights Links: McGahn petition, Article 1 sec 8, OA309 Stormy Daniels, CA v Texas, gov't opposition, Sinclair George Mason Law Review Article, Richmond Medical Center v. Gilmore, Smith v Illinois Dep't of Transportation, ACB questionnaire, 42 US Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices.
16-10-2020 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 57 seconden
OA429: This Court Will End Marriage Equality
As we say often... there's no sugar coating this one. Alito and Thomas shouted their pathetic homophobia from the bench in a concurrence recently. What was the ruling, you ask? No ruling. It was a concurrence on a denial of cert for a case involving - wait for it - Kim Davis. Yes, that Kim Davis. The case was so stupid that not even Alito and Thomas could get behind it, but they went out of their way to yell the quiet part as loudly as they could. Andrew has the full breakdown of what happened. Oh, uh, apropos of nothing... WE NEED TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE SENATE BACK. In happier news, Naomi Andrews is here to tell us all about the Access for All Conference Andrew will be speaking in! (Use code: openargs) Links: Obergefell, Kim Davis's Idiot Case, Zablocki v. Redhail (1978).
13-10-2020 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 52 seconden
OA428: Govt. Caught Lying for Flynn
The government has been caught doing some really absurd things to the benefit of Michael Flynn, including sneaking in post-it notes and lying on Brady material. Andrew's got the full breakdown for us. After that, we talk about Trump losing again in court in Trump v. Vance! Links: Access for All Conference, code: openargs, Whitmer kidnapping complaint, Goelman and gov lying on notes, more lying on McCabe, sticky notes, lying on Brady material, exhibit, yes tweets are official, DC cir en banc ruling, Trump v. Vance 2nd cir, Mazar's briefing schedule, US v R Enterprises.
9-10-2020 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 39 seconden
OA427: Roe is Doomed, Contraceptives Next? Your Guide to Amy Coney Barrett
No matter how many Republicans get COVID, McConnell will still find a way to confirm his new justice. So, Andrew has a signature deep dive on Barrett's most significant cases. The news, as always, isn't good. Links: ACB Questionnaire, ACBarrett supported group that said life begins at fertilization, Doe v. Purdue, Understanding Judge Barrett's Opinion in Doe v. Purdue, Rainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (2019), Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, 882 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2018), Wallace v. Grubhub, 970 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2020), AF Moore & Associates v. Pappas, 948 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2020), Casillas v. Madison Ave Assocs Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (2019), EEOC v. Costco, 903 F.3d 618 (7th Cir 2018).
We're still mad about Breonna Taylor's killing, and you should be too. A juror has come forward to say that the AG misrepresented the deliberations. We're like to get the tapes soon, but as of now we don't have them. We clarify and expand on a few things from our previous Breonna episode. Andrew also does a mini dive on the disproportionate racial breakdown of our prison population. In our main story, we talk about the blockbuster story by the NYT on Trump's tax returns. Andrew answers whether the NYT is in any legal trouble for the article, and we go into the horrifying contents of Trump's returns. Links: Breonna's family's civil suit, BOP Statistics: Inmate Race, Gap between number of blacks, whites in prison narrows, Imprisonment rate of black Americans fell by a third from 2006 to 2018, How to reduce the federal prison population, Trends in US Corrections, Immigration sends more people to federal prison, 21 US Code § 841, OA45: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us?, OA46: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? part 2, Trump Paid $750 in Federal Income Taxes in 2017, 1st Presidential Debate Transcript 2020, trump public disclosure 1, 2, 26 US Code § 172 - Net operating loss deduction, 2017 tax bill, NYT v. US, Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), OA200: Reporters and Confidential Sources, OA201: Follow Up Friday!, The BALCO reporters shielded a lying lawyer. They are no heroes., Absentee and Mail Voting Policies in Effect for the 2020 Election.
2-10-2020 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 24 seconden
OA425: 'The Election That Could Break America' ???
Let's talk about that Atlantic article that has really been scaring people. Andrew brings us his signature deep-dive, and why he's slightly optimistic that the fears in the article won't ultimately be borne out. Up first, we preview a topic for another time, this really interesting lawsuit against Facebook regarding the Rittenhouse shootings. Links: Trump will see what happens, Presidential Emergency Action Documents, OA370: Can Trump Cancel the Election? and Other COVID-19 Questions!, 19-465 Chiafalo v. Washington (07-06-2020), Faithless Elector State Laws, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Good News, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News, Vox Will Trump leave office if defeated?, law review: preparing for a disputed election, 3 U.S. Code § 2 - Failure to make choice on prescribed day, 3 U.S. Code § 5 - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors, 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, Atlantic The Terrifying Inadequacy of American Election Law, Bush v. Gore.
29-9-2020 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 32 seconden
OA424: No Charges for Breonna's Killer
The law worked... how it's designed to work. Andrew gives us the breakdown on what happened, and what didn't happen. After that, Andrew has the deepest of dives on Amy Coney Barrett, the odds-on favorite to be the next fundamentalist Justice on the Supreme Court. Links: Your homework for next episode What If Trump Refuses to Concede?, Hankison indictment, Kentucky Penal Code § 508.060, 431.073 Certain felony convictions may be vacated, Coney Barrett cult People of Praise, Catholic Judges in Capital Cases, Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion, Kanter v. Barr Addition Coney Barrett stuff: US Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. AutoZone, Inc., 860 F.3d 564, EEOC v. AutoZone, Incorporated – CourtListener.com, Schmidt v. Foster, 891 F.3d 302.
25-9-2020 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 52 seconden
OA423: White Collar Crime Explained, with Randall Eliason
*note that this episode was recorded before RBG's death and the resulting tenfold increase in existential doom feelings* If you're a keen listener, you might remember last time we had Prof. Randall Eliason on, he teased his forthcoming Great Courses Course! Well, it has now forth-come. Here's his new course! It's on White Collar Criminal Law, and boy does that sound relevant to.. *gestures broadly at the entire current administration*. In the first segment we answer whether or not Trump could be charged with manslaughter for all the slaughtering of man he did by lying about COVID-19.
22-9-2020 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 18 seconden
What Now?
RBG has died. This is terrible. Absolutely, unambiguously terrible. We were already recording something else when the news broke, so we decided to stop that recording, and give you our live, unfiltered reaction to the news. This is not a tribute to RBG. We are going to regroup and make sure we properly honor her immense legacy at a later time. This is a very human, fearful reaction to the awful news. Andrew breaks down the situation, and what is likely to happen. Keep in mind, he successfully predicted the last two Supreme Court appointments before they happened. We hope this episode helps you process. Let's all be a little kinder to each other today. We truly love our OA community and we are so unbelievably thankful for the great work so many of you are doing to fight for a better future.
19-9-2020 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 50 seconden
OA422: Road to Sedition aka Bill Barr, Evil POS
Certified supervillain Bill Barr has a new plan to arrest protestors for sedition and subversion. How worried should we be about this? What's the legal basis? As always, we've got the full breakdown! Before that, we briefly preview a horrifying story about possible eugenics being perpetrated by ICE. It's horrendous. We hope it's not real, but unfortunately... it might be. We also give some updates on the government taking over for Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case. Links: DC v. Ballenger, 28 US Code § 1447 - Procedure after removal generally, Barr Tells Prosecutors to Consider Charging Violent Protesters With Sedition, Harry Bridges - Wikipedia, 18 US Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government, Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 (1950), Robert G. Thompson, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), 18 US Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy, US v Rahman, 189 F. 3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1999), Omar Abdel-Rahman.
18-9-2020 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 39 seconden
OA421: Trump Evades Justice on Emoluments in 1st Term
There's no sugar coating it: the wheel of justice was so f***ing slow it couldn't do anything to Trump in 4 damn years. Come on in and hear the breakdown of the breakdown of justice. In our second segment we discuss even more crimes that Trump was shown to be guilty of in the Mueller Report. Yes, the Mueller Report. It was NOT total exoneration, or really any kind of exoneration, as it turns out. Links: Tatel, weakest emoluments case; covered in OA361: DC Sides with Trump in Emoluments Case?; and OA391: Republicans Are Still Trying To Break the Government, Part Eleven Billion; DOJ opposition to cert; DC & Md v Trump discussed on OA386: The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief!; interlocutory appeal 28 US Code § 1292 - Interlocutory decisions; CREW v. Donald J. Trump; lost initially Case 1:17-cv-00458-GBD Document 103 Filed 12/21/17; won after 1.5 years CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 09/13/2019; Leopold/Buzzfeed FOIA Lawsuit denied; Less Redacted Mueller Report; part 2; OA324: Trump's 9 Crimes and Misdemeanors
15-9-2020 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 13 seconden
OA420: DoJ Defending Trump in Carroll Case?
You've likely seen the headlines saying the DoJ wants to take over defending Trump against E. Jean Carroll, but you haven't heard it properly explained by our esteemed P. Andrew Torrez! So what's happening and is it normal? The answer might actually surprise you... We also talk a little about Bob Woodward's recordings of Trump and how totally awesome it is that he kept them secret for 7 months to sell his book. Links: Another Trump Judge Rate Not Qualified; Carroll v Trump; SDNY Docket; DoJ Statement for Intervention; 28 USC 2679; 28 U.S. Code § 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions.
11-9-2020 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 34 seconden
OA419: What Happened in McGirt v. Oklahoma
Did Neil Gorsuch and his 4 flaming liberal friends in the Supreme Court just give away half of Oklahoma? Ted Cruz thinks so, so that should tell you. But if you want to really know what happened, check out this Andrew Torrez Signature Deep Dive! In our first segment, we talk about whether any new information has changed our view of the Rittenhouse killings. Is Rittenhouse a terrorist? Is there any reasonable self-defense claim? Links: U.S. v. Thomas, 34 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 842-43 (11th Cir.); 474 U.S. 905, 106 S.Ct. 274, 88 L.Ed.2d 235 (1985); Postal Service Has Paid DeJoy’s Former Company $286 Million Since 2013; Did We Give Away Half of Oklahoma? | LegalEagle’s Law Review; Idiot Ted Cruz on Twitter; Plan of action remains unsettled after McGirt decision.
8-9-2020 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 9 seconden
OA418: D.C. Circuit Panel's Multiple Bad Court Thingies
Our main story today is how the DC Circuit Court has helped Trump successfully avoid accountability until after the election. You may remember Don McGahn from such investigations as Robert Mueller's. McGahn refused to cooperate at all with the House's impeachment investigation, under the complete nonsense theory of absolute immunity. Andrew breaks down what happened and gives a signature deep dive on House subpoena power! Our first segment is some good news and "Andrew was right" about the Flynn case. It could mean the Return of the OA Brief! Links: Feb. 2020 McGahn ruling; OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!; Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn; 8-31-20 McGahn ruling; McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); order staying the mandate.
4-9-2020 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 47 seconden
OA417: WTH, What the Hatch Act! with Allison Gill
Be warned, this episode contains explicit language and Trumpian hypocrisy. Given that the RNC was basically a 4-night Hatch Act Violation Spectacular, Andrew is delivering us the Hatch Act deep-dive we need. Joining us to talk about her personal experience with the Hatch Act is Allison Gill of Mueller She Wrote! That's right, now that she was fired from her government job, "AG" is now unmasked! Links: Hatch Act; penalties for violation; 10 U.S.C. § 973 and 18 U.S.C. § 593 pertaining to military; CREW v. OSC on Kellyanne Conway.
1-9-2020 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 20 seconden
OA416: The Kenosha Terrorist
17 year old murderer Kyle Rittenhouse was treated as a friend by the police even after he killed two people. Jacob Blake was shot in the back 7 times despite being unarmed. The difference? You already know it. Andrew gives us the breakdown of what happened, and what possible legal defenses we might see from Rittenhouse and the horrible right wingers who are already embracing him. In the first segment, we get a positive update on the USPS from a listener. And in the final segment, we get more positive news, this time from the Gavin Grimm case we've previously covered. References: USPS - 18 U.S. Code § 1703 delay or destruction of mail; House bill to repeal pre-funding mandate; expedited to street/afternoon sortation; New York v Trump; Trump's win rate is terrible. Kenosha - Cop Identified; Wis DOJ update; Kenosha Guard calls for Armed Vigilantes; NYT Kyle Rittenhouse Timeline; Kenosha Cops Silent on Support for Militia Ahead of Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting; Cops "appreciate" militia; Kenosha Police Chiefs blames victims; arrest warrant; Wisconsin Statute: 940.01; Wisconsin Statute 939.50; Federal Charges. Grimm - OA51: The Grimm Reality About Transgender Bathrooms; OA306: From Gavin Grimm to Jeffrey Epstein; 17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County; OA397: Explaining Bostock v. Clayton County; 4th Circuit Ruling on Grimm.
28-8-2020 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 22 seconden
OA415: DeJoy's Illegal Dismantling of the USPS
We're finally getting the deep-dive we've always wanted on the *drum roll* Unites States Postal Service! Questions answered by our esteemed Andrew include: Who is DeJoy? How is he even there? Why is the Post Service losing so much money? What's with the sorting machines and boxes disappearing? All those answers and more!
25-8-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 3 seconden
OA414: Steve Bannon Arrested!
So much to discuss on today's show! Bannon busted on billionaire's boat by the boys in blue! Leaders Of ‘We Build The Wall’ Online Fundraising Campaign Charged With Defrauding Hundreds Of Thousands Of Donors. Also, Andrew gives us some highlights from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. Despite being controlled by Republicans, this report was VERY damning.
21-8-2020 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 57 seconden
OA413: Birthers are Back and Roberts' Stealth Attack on Abortion Rights
This is not a happy episode, really, unless you enjoy Andrew completely demolishing racist birtherism crap published in Newsweek about Kamala Harris. The author is the same racist asshole who, curiously enough, wrote this: Ted Cruz's Citizenship Makes Him Eligible to be President. Ted Cruz wasn't born in this country, but Kamala Harris was. I wonder what the difference is? Here to help debunk this racist crap is the 14th Amendment. Also Garrett Epps, The Citizenship Clause: A "Legislative History"; U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). The first segment is some things Andrew was wrong about.. and the main segment is a depressing deep dive on how John Roberts has successfully undermined reproductive rights with almost no one noticing. Dahlia Lithwick noticed though and wrote John Roberts' stealth attack on abortion rights in June Medical v. Russo just paid off. Andrew dives deeper into this and explains what happened in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo and how the 8th Circuit has capitalized on this.
18-8-2020 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 43 seconden
OA412: Examining Kamala Harris's Record
Joe has made his pick and it's (predictably) Senator Kamala Harris! Andrew is bringing us an extensive, balanced deep-dive into Harris's record in the Senate, as California AG, and as a prosecutor for San Francisco. Rather than try to condense Andrew's extensive notes for this one, I'm linking them. Find his sources here. Before the main segment we read a listener comment about the census, and later in the episode we bid a fond farewell to Ed Brayton, a friend of the show who passed away this week. Rest in Peace.
14-8-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 24 seconden
OA411: Trump Guilty of Bribery? with Randall Eliason
Returning to the show is Randall D. Eliason, a law professor, writer and commentator on corporate and white collar criminal law! We discuss the Flynn case in more depth, as well as a bribery angle on the Roger Stone commutation. Check out Prof. Eliason's Sidebars Blog. Before that, Andrew has on voting by mail. Nevada has passed a bill AB4 that Trump in challenging in a truly ridiculous way. Find out why!
11-8-2020 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 37 seconden
OA410: NY AG Files to Dissolve the NRA!
In a HUGE breaking news story, the New York Attorney General has sought to dissolve the NRA over rampant corruption! The complaint is nearly a couple hundred pages, but our esteemed Andrew has already read it and has the breakdown for us in a truly rapid response Friday! Questions he answers include: what are the alleged facts? Can NY actually do this? Could LaPierre simply re-form the NRA somewhere else? And more! In the pre-segment, Andrew strongly advocates that you fill out your census! Check out this Statement By Former US Census Bureau Directors.
7-8-2020 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 54 seconden
OA409: Jed Shugerman on Trump's "Unfaithful Execution" of the Oath
Jed Shugerman is a Professor of Law at Fordham University. He and his colleague Ethan Leib filed a motion before Judge Amy Berman Jackson regarding Roger Stone's commutation. They argue "that the Constitution limits the pardon power to uses that are in the public interest, not primarily for self-interest, self-dealing, or self-protection." For more information and for links to Jed's law review articles related to these arguments, check out his blog post.
4-8-2020 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 38 seconden
OA408: What Happens When The CARES Act Expires Tomorrow?
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Republican proposal to extend the CARES Act, which is (of course) called the HEALS Act. It's a Republican proposal, so you know it's probably terrible, but... how bad is it? (Bad.) Listen and find out! Remember that our LIVE Q&A is THIS SATURDAY, 8/1, at 7:30 pm Eastern / 4:30 pm Pacific! We begin, however, with some good news! The D.C. Circuit has granted en banc review and vacated the prior panel opinion in the Michael Flynn case. That means our amicus brief is (potentially) back in business, baby! From there, we take down Trump's idiotic distract-o-Tweet of the day involving postponing the 2020 Election. No. He can't do this. It won't happen. Trump's a monster, but no. Then it's time for a deep dive on the CARES Act, which includes some mystery provisions we've outsourced to you, our listeners! After all that, it's time for #T3BE, this one a (straightforward?) question about permissible witness testimony. Remember that you too can play along by sharing this episode on social media using #T3BE. Patreon Bonuses Lots of goodies, including the Q&A Questions thread and Andrew's "100 Seconds" talk to the UK Skeptics in the Pub! Appearances Andrew pops in again for an interview on The Daily Beans. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We broke down why Trump can't cancel the election in detail in Episode 370. You can click here to read the McConnell HEALS Act proposal; here for the Rubio/Collins proposal we discussed on a second round of PPP loans; and here for the academic research led by Raj Chetty that PPP loans don't work. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
31-7-2020 • 58 minuten, 32 seconden
OA407: Trump's Illegal DHS Secretary
The very person in charge of Homeland Security is essentially "here illegally." The upside is, though, there is a one weird trick to undo everything he has done while overstaying his tenure! And by "trick" we mean a lengthy A. Torrez deep dive, so tune in! Before that, we talk about updates in the Flynn case and how the government is LYING about a Federal Rule. Links: DOJFlynnEnBancReply, 5 US Code § 3346 - Time limitation, 6 US Code § 551 - Transitional authorities, 22 US Code § 9685 - Transitional authorities, 5 US Code § 3348 - Vacant office, National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, DHS Under Boss, Trump's New Acting AG Unconstitutional?, Acting Officers and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, List of Bailfunds
28-7-2020 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 38 seconden
OA406: Fascism in Portland
Listeners and co-hosts alike have been wanting Andrew to do a breakdown of the situation in Portland. There are big questions like, for example, how? and WTF? and what can anyone do? Andrew answers these and gives us the timeline of what's led to the Trump administration sending out paramilitary troops to abduct people in unmarked vans, like a totally non-fascist president would do. Before that, we talk about the gun wielding couple from St. Louis who threatened BLM protestors, and how they're totally not going to face any justice for their undeniable crimes because they are white. Links: OA307: The Census Fight Is Not Over, St. Louis lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey, 2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons, St. Louis Gun Couple Charged, MO Gov Vows To Pardon Gun Couple, Supreme Court Rules - Rule 5 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar, Acting Secretary Wolf Condemns Violence In Portland, Portland Fence To Come Down, Portland City Council votes to defund police by $15 million, Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn't Have Proper Training, Man Shot in Face with Rubber Bullet, Portland Roadside Abduction, Ocasio-Cortez to introduce bill requiring federal officers to identify themselves, Terry v. Ohio, 8 USC 1357, 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, In re Neagle, 18 USC 242
24-7-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 56 seconden
OA405: SCOTUS OKs Execution of Prisoner with Alzheimer's
You'll never guess which 5 justices were in the affirmative in this case and which 4 dissented... unless you've ever listened to our show, in which case you'll easily guess. Andrew discusses this decision and why the popular idea that Roberts is turning more liberal is a misconception. We also talk about the latest in Trump v. Vance and when we might see Trump's tax returns or possibly an indictment! Links: Trump v. Vance Status Report; Purkey Opinion; OA400: No, John Roberts Is Not Your Friend; Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesn’t Mean He’s Becoming More Liberal; July 2020 Bar Exam: Jurisdiction Information
21-7-2020 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 35 seconden
OA404: Rule of Law Not Found
AKA the Roger Stone scandal. Trump has overloaded our ability to be angry and made us swallow outrage after outrage like Joey Chestnut eating hot dogs. But don't worry because Andrew is our Upton Sinclair telling us just what the hell is in these things. This one is a doozy. The Roger Stone commutation is absolutely a scandal, and in a just world would result in a swift impeachment and conviction. Before that, we've got updates on the Flynn case. What's happening there, and will the OA Amicus Brief(s) make any difference? Find out! Some links: Rule 35. En Banc Determination | Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; FRAP rule 40; Sullivan Moves for Rehearing En Banc; Local DC Circuit Rules; Trump Uses Pardon Power Differently Than Other Presidents, Scholars Say; Meet the Acting Pardon Attorney; OA90: Pardon Me? Yes, Donald Trump Can Pardon Himself; 7 13 20 Stone Filing Commutation; 28 CFR § 1.3 - Eligibility for filing petition for commutation of sentence; Roger Stone says McCarthy, Stefanik advocated against preelection clemency
17-7-2020 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 33 seconden
OA403: SCOTUS Demolishes Church State Separation
While the SCOTUS news last episode was good, this time around it is... not that. We've had a slew of terrible decisions for anyone who believes that taxpayers should not have to fund Christianity. So, like the Founders. To ease the pain a little, we have everyone's top 2 Andrew -- Seidel! He's the Director of Strategic Response at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization we encourage you to support and become a member of!
14-7-2020 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 53 seconden
OA402: Good News from SCOTUS!
Yes, you read that correctly, we've got some good news! You may not quite have seen the two decisions reported that way exactly, but Optimist Prime Torrez believes that 19-635 Trump v. Vance and 19-715 Trump v. Mazars were decided about as well as we could have hoped or better! After that, we tackle the absolutely horrendous move by ICE to try to deport international students, and what schools are doing to try to fight back!
10-7-2020 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 43 seconden
OA401: Legal Eagle Sues the Trump Administration!
Today we're joined by the Legal Eagle himself, Devin Stone! Devin is suing the Trump administration, with the help of his lawyer Kel McClanahan. Devin and Kel break down for us what the lawsuit is about, and what they hope to accomplish.
7-7-2020 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 40 seconden
OA400: No, John Roberts Is Not Your Friend
Today's show could also be called "the worst good news possible" because, yes, the Supreme Court declined to completely gut Roe v. Wade (despite the fact that Roe is effectively dead in many ways), but this was not John Roberts turning into AOC. Find out why in Andrew's breakdown! Before that main story though, our first segment is about some reallllly bad news out of Florida. Remember when Florida voters came out overwhelmingly in supermajority numbers to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Yeah Republicans said "nah." We last covered this, when we thought the courts scored us a victory, in Episode 363. We also discuss the Supreme Court granting cert for some Mueller Report cases, which is NOT good news. Here are Andrew's links and references: Private Debt Collectors ad 40% to Total, Felons Can't Afford These Fines, Jones v. Governor of Florida, Previous OAs on June Medical: OA249 OA251 and OA251.5, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, OA309 Discusses Sheldon Whitehouse, Comprehensive Supreme Court Report by Sen Whitehouse and his amicus brief, Roberts Narrow Concurrence vs. stare decisis in Casey.
3-7-2020 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 40 seconden
OA399: The LAMicus Brief
We've got a special treat for you fine folks today! This is the Law'd Awful Movies from last month where Thomas delivers his Amicus Brief in the Flynn case and Andrew and Morgan discuss the process of writing their brief! Heads up, this episode contains explicit language. Hope you enjoy!
30-6-2020 • 1 uur, 59 minuten, 11 seconden
OA398: The SCOTUS Asylum Ruling, Explained
Plus, Andrew breaks down (or has a breakdown over) the viral photo of a card that purportedly allows the holder to enter any business without wearing a mask. Is it real or... really stupid? Then we take a deep dive into DHS. v. Thuraissigiam, the asylum case recently decided by the Supreme Court.
26-6-2020 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 7 seconden
OA397: Explaining Bostock v. Clayton County
This episode breaks down exactly what happened in the Supreme Court's surprising 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's a great decision, we tell you why, and we give you some additional insights about Neil Gorsuch. We begin by diving into the case! We tell you exactly what it does (and doesn't) mean, figure out why this case took so long to get to a decision, and how it's exactly the ruling we thought might have been possible ever since the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that we discussed way back in Episode 60. In figuring that out, we discuss the narrow differences between "texualism" and "originalism," even though this show tends to lump them together. As part of the analysis, we take a look into Neil Gorsuch's voting patterns to see if he's a secret liberal. Hint: he isn't. After all that, it's time for the #T3BE answer on Constitutional law. Can the university fire a professor for her political views? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Go ahead and read the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County for yourself if you haven't yet. We discussed the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, with specific emphasis on the Flaum & Ripple concurrence. We also discussed R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Episode 167. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
23-6-2020 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 44 seconden
OA396.5 BONUS Episode: Will You Be Able To Read John Bolton's Book?
Today's bonus episode takes a deep dive into the lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration to try and block the publication of John Bolton's tell-all book. We break down the legal arguments and tell you whether you can look forward to getting that copy you ordered or not. (And seriously, you shouldn't give money to John Bolton. He's still a scumbag.) We begin, however, with a quick Andrew Was Right! in that PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Then, it's time to break down the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee and is an unambiguously good bill. Listen and find out why! After that, it's time to dig in to both the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the United States on behalf of Donald Trump because John Bolton's book made Trump feel bad. Do we really live in a society in which that happened? Yes. Do we live in one in which the court will grant injunctive relief? No. Listen and find out why. No #T3BE in this bonus episode but there's lots and lots of great content! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Although the plea agreement isn't available, this Ars Technica article is a good timeline of PG&E's criminal activities; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Click here to read the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee. You can read the Supreme Court's decision in Snepp v. U.S. 444 U.S. 507 (1980), the decision in the Pentagon Papers case, and also read the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the U.S. against Bolton. Injunctive relief is governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, check out the NSA's pre-publication procedures. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
20-6-2020 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 22 seconden
OA396: Happy Juneteenth from the Supreme Court!
Today's episode might have been titled "Andrew Was Really, Really Wrong," as we break down this rather surprising week in the Supreme Court, including the Title VII cases, the Court's refusal to grant cert on any gun case, and the DACA decision. We begin with a quick Happy Juneteenth! From there, we tackle the ways in which Andrew Was Wrong, starting with the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the consolidated case in which the Court has now held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity. We promise you it isn't a poison pill; it's an unambiguously good decision. After that, it's time to talk about another thing Andrew was wrong about that's kind of flown under the radar -- the fact that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in all 10 of the pending gun cases, allowing some good rulings to stand and forestalling some bad new law on the Second Amendment. Then, it's time to break down the Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Trump, the case involving whether the Trump administration can unilaterally end DACA. The Court ruled they can't -- but this decision has a number of red flags in it that we discuss on the show. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about constitutional law and whether a religious university can fire a professor for what she writes in an op-ed? Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven’t yet. You can read the Court's decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, and Regents of the University of California v. Trump. We discussed the importance of the Kolbe v. Hogan way back in Episode 47, and the Trump administration's approach to DACA in Episode 102. Finally, check out the Trump administration's scorecard (6-79!) in administrative actions. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
19-6-2020 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 26 seconden
OA395: The Andrew Was Already Wrong Show!
Today's show takes a deep dive into the Supreme Court, with the theme of "Shame Justice Roberts," and we recorded this... just before Justice Roberts (and, surprisingly, Neil Gorsuch) voted to affirm in the Zarda cases, recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition "on the basis of sex" includes sexual orientation. Andrew was (happily) wrong indeed. We begin, however, with a discussion of the latest madness coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and how Andrew would fight it. Then, it's time for our Supreme Court roundup, which featured not only Zarda, but a look at the pending gun cases (all of which were denied) and an analysis of the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision permitting California to establish medical restrictions on churches and other places of public accommodation. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE involving real property! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven't yet. We last discussed the McGahn case in Episode 366. Click here to read the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
16-6-2020 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 18 seconden
OA394: The Amicus Show!
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the concept of an amicus brief, explaining why we filed one in the Flynn case, what it means, and what's next for the guy who sold out his country... and his partner. We begin with a brief update on the Flynn trial (in the District Court for the District of Columbia) and the mandamus action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then, it's time to talk about all the various amicus briefs that were filed, with special attention to a pro-Flynn brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Why does this liberal group want Judge Sullivan to grant the government's motion? Listen and find out! After a breakdown of all the amicus, we talk about the case in which Lt. Gen. Flynn was supposed to be the star witness for the government -- the case against Flynn's partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Find out what's up next for Kian, and how this all involves friend of the show G. ZACHARY TERWILLIGER! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this one involving... real property. Can Thomas manage to figure out the relationship between a buyer, a mortgagor, a developer, and an unsigned deed? Listen and find out, and play along if you want on social media! Patreon Bonuses We posted six separate updates to the amicus brief in progress, and there's more where that came from! Appearances Andrew was just on the latest episode of the Daily Beans Podcast. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! You can also click here for the reply brief just filed by G. Zachary Terwilliger in the Bijan Kian case. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
12-6-2020 • 1 uur, 31 minuten, 53 seconden
OA393: Gabe Roth of Fix the Court
Today we're joined by Gabe Roth, executive director of https://fixthecourt.com/. Fix the Court is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for non-ideological “fixes” that would make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and more accountable to the American people. In his work, Gabe has been tracking some curious financial dealings of "friend" of the show Justin Walker. We discuss that, and other ethics questions and reforms related to the court system.
9-6-2020 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 53 seconden
OA392: In the Aftermath of George Floyd
Today's extra-long show -- two hours if you're a patron! -- tackles all the issues surrounding the state of our Union in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, including questions about which charges should be filed against Derek Chauvin, whether Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, and much, much more! Oh, and as a bonus, we also have a "lightning round" Yodel Mountain segment (with deep dives for patrons). We begin with an in-depth discussion of an argument made by arguably the country's greatest legal mind, Laurence Tribe, that the murder-3 charge against George Floyd was sure to be dismissed. Find out why Andrew thinks Tribe is wrong, even in light of the Minnesota DA's decision to add a murder-2 charge to Chauvin's charges. After that, Andrew will explain one thing he was wrong about... due to a "quirk" in Minnesota's laws regarding felony murder and the merger doctrine. Then, we discuss Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify potentially sending armed forces into American cities. You'll learn exactly how not justified this is... and whether it matters. After that, it's time to (briefly!) check in with Black Lives Matter and evaluate their lawsuit against Eric Garcetti for an injunction to block the Los Angeles curfew. Will it succeed? (No.) We're not remotely done, though! After all that, it's time to head on up for a lightning round atop Yodel Mountain., were we check in on (1) Rod Rosenstein's Senate testimony, (2) Judge Sullivan's DC Circuit brief in the Flynn case, and (3) a weird story making the rounds regarding a 2016 lawsuit filed (and dropped) against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. After all that, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE involving character testimony. It's a tough question; can Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! And remember -- if you're a patron, you get a ton of bonus content in this episode, including deep dives on each and every one of these stories! Patreon Bonuses There's a new Patreon amicus thread in addition to all the other patreon goodies. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links COVID-19 is still a crisis. On Floyd: (a) you can click here to read the revised Chauvin charging document; (b) this is the here's the Laurence Tribe article; and (c) here's the Greg Egan law review article. We also discuss a number of cases including State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W. 2d 408 (Minn. 1980), State v. Loebach, 310 N.W. 2d 58 (Minn. 1981), and State v. Barnes, 713 N.W.2d 325 (Minn. 2006). On the Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, we cited two specific provisions: § 252 and § 253. And we discussed Greg Gianforte back in Episode 72. During the bonus, we also discussed two executive orders from the George H. W. Bush presidency: EO 12690 and EO 12804, and two corresponding Proclamations: 6023 and 6427. During the bonus, we also break down how Vol. I of the Mueller Report contradicts Rosenstein's testimony. Finally, check out Sullivan's D.C. Circuit brief. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
5-6-2020 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 8 seconden
OA391: Republicans Are Still Trying To Break the Government, Part Eleven Billion
Today's episode takes a deep dive into H.R. 965, which (quite sensibly) permits proxy voting in the House of Representatives in light of the COVID-19 crisis, and the lawsuit filed by various Republican lawmakers to try and stop it. Good news! The lawsuit has no chance of success thanks to... litigation prompted by Donald Trump. We begin, however, with an update on the DOJ probe into insider trading allegations against four Senators that allegedly -- either on their own behalf or via another party -- sold off stock prior to the public pronouncements about COVID-19 that tanked the stock market. Who got off? Who's left under the microscope? Is there anything nefarious here? We break it all down for you! After that it's time to delve into the recent legislation and accompanying (nonsense) lawsuit by Republicans challenging the House's simple resolution, H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967). Find out how the whole thing is going to be precluded thanks to the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump, which was of course hailed as a victory for the President at the time. Then, it's time to check back in with #T3BE involving potential negligence for a factory that failed to install sprinklers. Can Thomas pull this one out? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses If you missed our Live Q&A #32, the audio is now up for all Patrons! Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links DOJ probe links: (a) here's the NPR link to the story; and (b) here's the GovTrack link to the fact that Marco Rubio still doesn't do his damn job. On remote voting, check out (a) H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967; (b) the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump; (c) our discussion of that case in Episode 361; (d) the Congressional Research Service article we discussed; and (e) United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
2-6-2020 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 32 seconden
Bonus: George Floyd and Policing the Police
Today's emergency episode breaks down everything you need to know about the death of George Floyd and the charges filed against Officer Derek Chauvin in Minnesota. Patreon Bonuses We’ve got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of The Daily Beans. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do check out how to partner with Black Lives Matter. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
31-5-2020 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 10 seconden
OA390: Trump's War on Twitter (A Deep Dive on Section 230)
Today's episode breaks down the latest temper tantrum and accompanying executive order by our game show host president attacking social media platforms for having the temerity to engage in fact-checking. You're going to be hearing a lot about "Section 230" -- so we're here to tell you exactly what that means, what Trump is trying to do, and why it matters. We begin, however, with a pretty straightforward Andrew Was Right now that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton that we covered back in Episode 354 ("A Russian Asset Sues What?"). Then it's time for our deep dive into CompuServe, Prodigy, section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 -- which ended internet porn forever -- and what all of that has to do with Trump's latest tantrum over being fact-checked on Twitter. You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for an update on the amicus brief we're filing in the Flynn case. We tell you what Flynn's best case is, and walk through how it does and does not inform Judge Sullivan's discretion under Rule 48(a). And then, of course, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a fire at one warehouse spreading to another. If you want to play along, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we might pick you as next week's winner! Patreon Bonuses We've got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of The Daily Beans. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Tulsi links: (a) click here for the news that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit; (b) here to read the original defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton; (c) the Time magazine story on how strong a case Tulsi Gabbard had; and (d) be sure to listen to our coverage of this from Episode 354 ("A Russian Asset Sues What?"). Trump links: (a) click here for the fact-check on Trump; (b) here is the text of 47 U.S.C. § 230; (c) for the draft of the Executive Order, check out Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, and Page 6. OA brief: Click here to read U.S. v Fokker Svcs. BV, 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
29-5-2020 • 1 uur, 25 minuten, 21 seconden
OA389: #Obamagate (w/guest AG!)
Today's episode brings back AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts to help delve in to all the craziness that is #Obamagate. And, as a bonus, we also discuss the five Inspectors General fired by Trump and what they were investigating. You won't want to miss this special episode! As it turns out, #Obamagate is nonsense. Who knew? After the hour-long interview, it's time to revisit #T3BE, in which Thomas decided the issue was hearsay, not spousal privilege. Did he get the answer correct? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 123 of the Skepticrat, discussing some of these same issues. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out this story on Steve Linick, the AG investigating Mike Pompeo. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
26-5-2020 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 41 seconden
OA388: Reinstating the Rule of Law
Today's episode checks in on all the latest goings-on in the Trump administration that probably don't violate the law but do undermine the norms of 200+ years of government, from firing Inspectors General that are potentially interested in government accountability to the DOJ's refusal to turn over the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee to the collusion between Bob Barr and Michael Flynn. You won't want to miss it. We begin with some pre-show news about Cory Wilson, the latest completely insane, hyper-partisan (and 49-year-old) Trump nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals. From there, we take a deep dive into the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3, and the legal protections for IGs (or lack thereof). After that, it's time to check in on the latest order by the Supreme Court staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee. We explain exactly what that means and when, if ever, you should start panicking. Then, it's time for an update on the Flynn case where we're filing The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! Also, we check in on a truly terrible Sidney Powell filing seeking mandamus from the D.C. Circuit. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about a man, his yacht, and insurance fraud -- in which Thomas tries to figure out if the issue is privilege, hearsay, or something else entirely. Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of the Daily Beans podcast! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Cory Wilson was rated a tepid "Qualified" by the ABA his first-go-round; that got upgraded to "mostly Well-Qualified" when he was renominated. Check out the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3. This is the Supreme Court order staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report. Here's the petition for mandamus, and the opposition by the House of Representatives. We last covered the Flynn case in Episode 386. Click here to read the 4th Circuit's mandamus opinion in In re Flynn. And click here to check out the late-breaking order from the 4th Circuit requiring additional briefing from Judge Sullivan. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
22-5-2020 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 43 seconden
OA387: You Pay the Priest (w/Andrew Seidel)
Today's episode features an interview with one of our favorite recurring guests, Andrew Seidel, who returns to warn us of new regulations pursuant to the CARES Act that are permitting churches to take PPP money. Yes, that means your tax dollars are literally paying the salaries of ministers, priests, imams, and the like. We also discuss what just happened in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court invalidated Gov. Evers's stay-at-home order. Is it bad? Listen and find out! (Yes.) After that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE about when & where double jeopardy attaches. Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links If you missed Andrew Seidel's last appearance in Episode 376, go check it out! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
19-5-2020 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 4 seconden
OA386: The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief!
Today's episode marks a milestone for the show: we're going to file an amicus curiae brief in the Michael Flynn case. Find out exactly how & why we're doing this! We begin, however, with a brief update in the various emoluments cases, including an update on the two orders released this morning by the 4th Circuit en banc. After that it's time to dig into all the developments in the Flynn litigation that will lead to the filing of Opening Arguments' first amicus brief! Then, it's time for #T3BE, featuring next week's guest, Andrew Seidel! Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links The last time we broke down the emoluments clause cases was in Episode 361. You can check out the two orders released this morning by the 4th Circuit en banc (the first one is the lengthy discussion). Flynn docs: the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss; the Notice of Intent to file amicus by the Watergate Prosecutors, as well as the 9th Circuit's Opinion in U.S. v. Hector. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
15-5-2020 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 57 seconden
OA385: Reality Check! (w/Allison Gill)
Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Allison Gill of American Atheists regarding the just-released survey Reality Check, which interviews more than 34,000 nonreligious individuals, gathering data as a precursor to support specific arguments with lawmakers in terms of lobbying for recognizing atheist constituents. You won't want to miss it! We begin, however, with a bit more in-depth analysis about the nonjusticiability doctrine and how it might affect the Supreme Court's decision in the Mazars and Deutsche Bank subpoena cases -- which are being heard today by the Supreme Court! Then, it's time for our in-depth interview with Allison where we talk about discrimination against atheists, including a deep dive into the actual research that shows how atheists are treated in society -- even among educated peers. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 177 involving a noxious factory next to a residence and mini-golf. Can Thomas keep up his winning streak? There's only one way to find out!
12-5-2020 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 16 seconden
OA384: Bridgegate Apparently Was Fine
Today's episode updates you on all the recent goings-on at the Supreme Court, including the advent of new, social-distancing-approved oral arguments, the Court's calendar, and today's 9-0 reversal in Kelly v. U.S., the Bridgegate case. Oh, and while we're at it, we also take on two lengthy Andrew Was (Sort of) Wrong segments! Phew! We begin with a discussion of the new procedures for SCOTUS oral arguments, and give an apology to Clarence Thomas, who's now engaged and asking questions after decades of silence on the bench. After that, it's time to take a look at the SCOTUS calendar where we check out some suspicious timing regarding the non-release of the Title VII cases as well as 10 pending gun control cert petitions. Then, it's time for a deep dive into Kelly v. U.S., which we last covered in Episode 232. Andrew thought the 3rd Circuit's analysis of "property" was plausible in that episode... and just got reversed 9-0 by a unanimous Supreme Court. Whoops! As long as Andrew Was Wrong, how about we check back in on Andrew Yang's lawsuit against the DNC, in which Yang (despite "not having a great case," according to Andrew in Episode 382) nevertheless managed to secure an injunction from the Southern District of New York. Find out where this case is headed, what's next, and why Andrew is STILL right, sort of.... Finally, Andrew Was... not wrong, exactly, but Flabbergasted that the American Bar Association reversed itself, finding Justin Walker "Well Qualified" for serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Andrew, on the other hand, continues to rate Walker "Not Qualified," as per Episode 289. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a nuisance plant next to a mini-golf park. Will Thomas's winning streak continue? Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 204 of The Daily Beans, talking justiciability. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Kelly v. U.S., and here to listen to our coverage of the Third Circuit's opinion in Episode 232. Check out the district court's injunction in favor of Andrew Yang reinstating the New York Democratic primary. You can check out the ABA's "Not Qualified" ranking of Walker in 2019 and match it against their new "Well Qualified" letter here. For more on why you should #OpposeJustinWalker, check out Episode 289. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
8-5-2020 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 2 seconden
OA383: Trump's Taxes & The CARES Act (Or: Why Your Vote Matters)
Today's episode checks back in with the status of the consolidated cases pending before the Supreme Court regarding Trump's tax returns. As it turns out, this overlaps pretty strongly with the show's "B" segment about the potential for abuse in the CARES Act. We begin with a colossal "Andrew Was Wrong" -- in which Andrew optimistically predicted we'd see Trump's tax returns in 2019. That... turned out not to be the case. So what are the odds that we'll see Trump's taxes before the November elections? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for another semi-deep-dive, and this time we're checking back in with the just-passed CARES Act as Andrew talks about a provision we missed the first time around that has the potential to... well, you'll just have to listen and find out! Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 176 involving burning a copy of the IRS Code. Is it illegal? If so, why? Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking about the abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and other crazy legal stories in the news. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the letter sent by Liz Warren & other Democratic Senators to Deutsche Bank. Our comprehensive overview of the CARES Act was in Episode 372, and you can read the final CARES Act here. The Sunshine Act is 5 U.S.C. § 552b. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
5-5-2020 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 10 seconden
OA382: Bernie Sanders Was Right! (The DNC & Payday Lenders)
Today's episode takes two deep dives -- first, into New York's cancellation of its Democratic Presidential Primary, and second, into the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and efforts by scumbag payday lenders to take your tax dollars despite being parasites. We begin with a thorough examination of the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules and the Call For Convention Rules and figure out whether Bernie Sanders can get to 25% -- and why that matters. Learn why Andrew Yang's lawsuit omits what Andrew thinks is the best argument -- Rule 11.C -- and exactly how it comes into play in terms of the candidates' delegate count. We end with some optimism and a bold prediction by Andrew about the Biden campaign! After that, it's time for a deep dive into a provision of the CARES Act that we didn't cover back in Episode 372, namely, the Paycheck Protection Program. How does it operate? And how are payday lenders operating on two fronts to try and take advantage of it? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for an all-new #T3BE about a libertarian tax protestor who sets fire to the Internal Revenue Code inside a government building. (We can't make this stuff up.) Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don’t forget that we’ve released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking about the abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and other crazy legal stories in the news. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read Andrew Yang's lawsuit against the DNC; here for the Delegate Selection Rules; and here for the Call For Convention Rules. This is the April 17, 2020 AP article suggesting that Biden may let Sanders keep his statewide delegates. Latest news regarding payday lenders: this April 29, 2020 New York Times article suggesting the fix was in at Trump's CFPB, and former CFPB member Jonathan Lanning's blockbuster 17-page email documenting the corruption. Here's the list of SBA Section 7(a) lenders, and this is the relevant regulation, 13 CFR § 120.110(b). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
1-5-2020 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 42 seconden
OA381: The Legal Eagle Interview!
Today's episode... was supposed to have two bookend segments and legal analysis, but we wound up having so much fun talking to Devin Stone, the Legal Eagle himself about nontraditional careers in the law, Tiger King and Better Call Saul, and so much more! After that, it's time for the answer to the first Thomas and Devin Take The Bar Exam in which it was literally Hammer Time for two friends watching football. Did Thomas and Devin get it right or wrong? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don’t forget that we’ve released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking crazy legal stories in the news, and Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
28-4-2020 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 59 seconden
OA380: This Week at the Supreme Court
Today's episode breaks down two significant Supreme Court decisions released this week, including Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). We break down each one and explain the short- and long-term implications. First, though, it's time for a bit of Andrew Was Right and Andrew Was Wrong. The good news: Texas has changed its Executive Order formerly prohibiting abortions and has now affirmed in open court that it will not use the COVID-19 pandemic as pretext for denying reproductive health rights! Best of all, this is exactly the result we've been telling you would happen over the past few weeks -- even though it took us a bit to get there. But also Andrew Was Wrong? Yeah, Andrew also has a correction to issue regarding lifetime judicial appointments in Episode 378. Then, it's time for the main segment in which we break down the Supreme Court's completely predicable -- and utterly unjustifiable -- 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr to restrict the remedies available to legal aliens to challenge removal decisions. Find out why Neil Gorsuch openly admits that the interpretation he votes for makes no sense, textually. (Hint: it's because these justices don't care about jurisprudence, just about outcomes.) After that, we tackle a second key Supreme Court decision that came out this week, Ramos v. Louisiana, in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury was incorporated to the states. Find out why this case presents a "stare decisis trap" for the Court's liberal justices and how that explains this unique 6-3 alignment with Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor in dissent (!) Then, of course, it's time for an all-new Thomas (and Devin) Take the Bar Exam, in which we preview next week's special guest and they try and break down a criminal question about football. You won't want to miss it! Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don't forget that we've released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For a sneak peek at next week's guest, check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel. Click here to read the Court's decisions in Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). In the A segment, we discuss the hilariously-secretive announcement of GA-15, the text of GA-15 itself, and quote extensively from the reply brief filed by Texas in Judge Yeakel's court (W.D. Tex.). Our previous immigration discussions were in Episodes 301 and 314. We talked about how subsection d(1)(B) was buried on page 596 of the 750-page Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and also broke down the text of both 8 U.S.C. § 1229b and 8 U.S.C. § 1282. Finally, please read this amazing piece by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times analyzing the Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
24-4-2020 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 59 seconden
OA379: Trump's Contempt for the Press & Husch Blackwell
Today's episode features a deep dive on a completely frivolous lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against a Wisconsin TV station for simply airing an ad created by Priorities USA that... uses a pastiche of Trump's own words talking about COVID-19. Learn why Trump (and his corrupt lawyers at Husch Blackwell) are transparently trying to silence any public criticism of this President. First, we begin with an update on the various emoluments clause cases and we learn a) the status of all three cases and b) why none are likely to be decided before the next Presidential election. Then, it's time for that deep dive into Trump for President, Inc. v. Northland Television d/b/a WJFW-NBC, a nonsense lawsuit designed to intimidate a local TV station for airing a garden-variety attack ad against Trump's handling of COVID-19. After that, it's time to decipher whether Trump can actually de-fund the World Health Organization (WHO), as he's threatened. (Hint: no.) Then, of course, it's time for the answer to a thrilling #T3BE involving breach of contract by a beloved aunt and her niece over the ownership of a business, the transfer of a lease, and some slow lawyers. Will Thomas's win streak continue? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses We just released Law'd Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Whatever you do, don't share out this anti-Trump ad created by Priorities USA on social media, or you might get sued by Trump via his lawyers at Husch Blackwell. You can read the Trump for President, Inc. v. Northland Television d/b/a WJFW-NBC lawsuit for yourself. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
21-4-2020 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 40 seconden
OA378: Trump's Stupid Threat to "Adjourn" the Senate (A Primer on Appointments)
Today's episode breaks down the latest threat by Donald Trump to "adjourn" the House and Senate, and explains why a) you shouldn't be scared and b) he's unlikely to do it. This is a stunt designed to distract us from how badly Trump has handled COVID-19; we recognize we're sort of falling for it, so we're bringing you a deep dive on appointments and good news as well! We begin, however, with that good news, including an update on the HUGE VICTORY for the forces of democracy in Wisconsin in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's shameful decision that we discussed in Episode 376. And, to pile on, we talk about good news in all of the abortion cases, even those in Texas! After that, it's time for the main segment breaking down whether Trump can adjourn the House and Senate (probably), whether he will (almost certainly not), and why not (because there's not much to be gained and a ton to risk). Along the way, we'll do a deep dive into NLRB v. Noel Canning, a 2014 Supreme Court decision that constrains Presidential "recess appointments" -- which is what Trump would presumably adjourn the Senate to do. Then it's time for a brand new #T3BE about an aunt who changes her mind about selling her business to her niece. Can she be sued? Listen and find out! And, as always, if you want to play along on social media just share out this episode along with your answer! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's Trump's threat to adjourn Congress. We begin with an analysis of the Senate's rules on advice-and-consent in approving Presidential appointments. You'll want to read NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). Finally, here's the Tweet by Steve Vladeck with which Andrew disagrees. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
17-4-2020 • 1 uur, 30 minuten, 50 seconden
OA377: Trump's Pyramid Schemes and Arbitration (feat. AG!)
Today's episode features one of our most-requested return guests, AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts. AG joins us for "Below the Radar," stories that you might have missed while your eyes glazed over during the 11th consecutive coronavirus press conference. We begin, however, with a nice grab-bag of Andrew Was Rights (and Wrongs, sadly) from the Carolinas to Illinois to the CARES Act to the sad and perhaps inevitable ascension of 37-year-old Federalist Society hack Justin Walker, Andrew Was... Something. After that it's time to welcome on AG to discuss a recent ruling requiring the Trump crime syndicate in both their individual and corporate capacities to actually litigate claims rather than shunt them off into arbitration. Andrew and AG break down the significance of last week's ruling, which may have flown... Under The Radar (TM). Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 173 involving an auto accident, contributory negligence, and one of our favorite lawyers. Did Thomas and Andrew get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses We just did an amazing SIO crossover with an Australian lawyer on the Cardinal Pell decision, and don’t forget you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don’t forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on the Talk Heathen live call-in show, so you can see how he handles religious apologists. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We broke down the CARES Act in Episode 372, and you can check out the final "no offset" provision here, on p. 154. For more on Justin Walker, check out his debate with Andrew on Episode 224 and our breakdown of his lack of qualifications to serve on the federal bench in Episode 289. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
14-4-2020 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 36 seconden
OA376: Texas, Wisconsin & Washington (feat. Andrew Seidel)
Today's episode updates you on litigation in three states: in Texas, where the 5th Circuit blocked the lower court injunction, allowing the anti-abortion executive order to go into place; in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court literally killed people; and in Washington, where publicity-seeking idiots have some liberals convinced Fox News is about to file for bankruptcy. We begin in Texas, with an Andrew Was Wrong -- and also, a hidden message of solidarity from the dissent in In re Greg Abbott as to how abortion clinics can stay open despite Executive Order GA-08. You won't want to miss it! Then, we have on Wisconsin citizen Andrew Seidel to break down the Supreme Court's decision forcing people to the polls during an epidemic. Bonus: you can count the number of relevant citations in the majority opinion (0). After that, it's time to check out the Complaint in WASHLITE v. Fox News, which will probably get us sued by litigation-happy buffoons. As you can imagine, we are NOT KIND to this wadded-up diaper full of nonsense. Then, you know it's time for a brand-new #T3BE where Thomas and Andrew S. tackle a civ pro question framed around a car accident. Want to play along? Just share out this episode on social media with #T3BE and we'll pick a winner.... Patreon Bonuses We just did an amazing SIO crossover with an Australian lawyer on the Cardinal Pell decision, and don't forget you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don’t forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on the Talk Heathen live call-in show, so you can see how he handles religious apologists. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here is the Supreme Court's opinion in connection with the Wisconsin election. Here's the headquarters of WASHLITE - 1826 Berry Street NE, Olympia, Washington, and here are the articles on Arthur West (Seattle Times) and Liz Hallock (Yakima Herald). The binding decision in the Washington courts is Fidelity Mortgage Corporation v. Seattle Times Co., 131 Wn. App. 462 (2005). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
10-4-2020 • 1 uur, 31 minuten, 43 seconden
OA375: Knowledge Fight!
Today's episode is a fun interview with Dan and Jordan from the Knowledge Fight! podcast, your #1 source for deciphering the otherwise-indecipherable world of Alex Jones. We think you'll enjoy this interview; it's got a little bit of everything -- laughter, tears, and, of course, madness. After the interview, it's time to answer an exciting new #T3BE civ pro question that involves res judicata — a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses We're still bringing you the Patreon bonuses! You can submit proposed new intro quotes for the show, and you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don't forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW! Appearances Once more, Andrew was a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, breaking down the week in news. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You should really check out the Knowledge Fight! podcast! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
7-4-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 21 seconden
OA374: The Light at the End of the Tunnel
Today's episode covers a number of stories that might be bad news for now, but each one, we think there's a reason to be optimistic beneath the surface. We also make sure we're holding Idaho's feet to the fire for the anti-trans bills that state tried to sneak past the radar this week, and we tell you the fate of states that have tried to restrict access to abortion using COVID-19 as pretext. We begin with a survey of the landscape including the states that haven't issued stay-at-home orders. There's an interesting commonality among these states' governors; can you figure it out?? Then, it's time for our main segment which is a deep dive into Idaho HB 509 that attempts to prevent trans people from changing their gender on their birth certificate. The bill is horrible, bigoted, and mean... and yet why are we optimistic? You'll have to listen and find out! After all that, it's time to take a look at the six states that have attempted to restrict access to abortion services during COVID-19 and examine the latest rulings by the Fifth Circuit. Why isn't it as bad as you've heard? We tell you exactly why. We conclude, as always, with a brand-new #T3BE featuring a civ pro question that involves res judicata -- a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses There’s still so much right now! If you’re a Patron, you can submit proposed new intro quotes for the show, and you can also listen to the audio from March's LIVE Q&A! Oh, and if you missed it, you can also enjoy Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, talking megapastors flaunting the law. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You should read F.V. v. Barron, the Idaho case we discussed at length, as well as the current Idaho rules regarding birth certificate changes. You can also check out the WPATH Standards of Care document. This is the 5th Circuit's order on abortion. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
3-4-2020 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 21 seconden
OA373: The Happy Show!
Idiotic legal pleadings, sports law, and some news debunking... what could be happier?
31-3-2020 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 6 seconden
OA372: The CARES Act, COVID-19, and Your $1,200 Check
Today's episode breaks down the three main provisions of the just-passed CARES Act in terms of (1) additional unemployment benefits, (2) tax relief in the form of advance $1,200 "rebate" checks to taxpayers, and (3) the $500 billion "slush fund" for corporate giveaways. While there's more in this 880-page monstrosity, we break down the key parts for you! We begin, however, with some good news about the impending retirement of Ohio Rep., Trump-supporting lunatic, and soon-to-be-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Does this violate the Ineligibility Clause of the Constitution? YOU BETCHA. Is it #ClearAsKushner? YEP! And this time, does it matter? YES IT DOES! After that it's time for a full breakdown of the main components of the CARES Act, including how much money you'll be getting and when, what the costs are, and what the provisions are that can come into play to prevent all of this from winding up in Jared Kushner's pocket. You won't want to miss it! After all that, it's time for a quick segment on IRS Form W-7, which allows you to pay your taxes if you're a nonresident alien. Patreon Bonuses There's so much right now! If you're a Patron, you can submit your questions for next Tuesday's LIVE Q&A scheduled for 3/31 at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can also enjoy Andrew's Lecture, "We're All Gonna Die!" and the accompanying slides! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, talking President Leahy. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links On the Ineligibility Clause: check out Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) (restricting taxpayer and citizen standing) and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority et al. v. Citizens For The Abatement Of Aircraft Noise, Inc., et al., 501 U.S. 252 (1991) (invalidating Congressional action pursuant to the Ineligiblity Clause). You can read the final CARES ACT for yourself, all 880 pages of it! Please do fill out IRS Form W-7 if it applies to you. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
27-3-2020 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 50 seconden
OA371: Your COVID-19 Questions, Continued!
Today's episode is the second half of our double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. If you haven't listened to Episode 370 (Part 1) first, go check that out! We tackle: The extent of federal and state powers during emergencies, including the National Emergency Act, 50 U.S.C. Ch. 34, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121, and 42 U.S. § 264; And we contrasted that with state powers, such as 2018 Maryland Code, Public Safety Art., Title 14, Article 3. Whether the House of Representatives has to vote in chamber, or whether they can use technology; Whether restrictions on gatherings violate the First Amendment; Whether you can be charged with a crime for spreading coronavirus; And much, much more! No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure! Patreon Bonuses If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866). Federal powers: 50 U.S.C. Ch. 34, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121, and 42 U.S. § 264; the federal government has enumerated powers as per the 10th Amendment. Check out the Rules of the House of Representatives. On time, place & manner we cited Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
24-3-2020 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 32 seconden
OA370: Can Trump Cancel the Election? and Other COVID-19 Questions!
Today's episode begins with a discussion of the recent dismissal of charges by the Department of Justice against Concord Management & Consulting, LLC (and Concord Catering) with prejudice. Is this another example of Attorney General Bill Barr's meddling? We explain that it... probably... isn't. Probably. After that, it's time for the first part of a double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. First up are all the questions involving elections, including whether and how Trump can suspend or eliminate the election, and what would happen if he did. If you've always wanted Vermont Senator Pat Leahy to be President, well, this is the episode for you! No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure! Patreon Bonuses If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links On Concord Management: you can check out the 2019 Motion alleging that Concord was abusing the discovery process as well as the 3/16/20 motion to dismiss. As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866). On primaries: Check out the Ohio Supreme Court's denial of the writ of mandamus to hold the March 16 primary, as well as the lawsuit filed by the Ohio Democratic Party. Oh, and if you want to be depressed, read Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927). Election statutes: 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7 (“Time of Election”) and 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. And of course, don't forget Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), which we broke down way back in Episodes 3, 4, and 5 of the show! Presidential succession is governed, inter alia, by the 20th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. § 19, and the Speaker of the House is required by Art. I, Section 2 of the Constitution and implemented by the House Rules. Pat Leahy as President was first proposed by journalist Ian Millhiser. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
20-3-2020 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 42 seconden
OA369: Humanist Invocations & LED ZEPPELIN
Today's episode features two deep dives: first, we have an interview with David Williamson of the Central Florida Freethought Community to discuss their successful (!) five-year lawsuit to permit humanist, atheist & non-clergy invocations before the Brevard County council meetings. Find out how this case developed and learn some strategies for successful grass-roots activism even in the age of Trump! We also take one more deep dive into the amazing Spirit/Led Zeppelin lawsuit, this time taking a look at the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit that reverses the earlier panel opinion (and is a win for Led Zep). The 9th Circuit has some interesting things to say about the "inverse ratio" rule that really brings out discussion from the past two weeks (see episodes 365 and 367). We know you'll enjoy it! After that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 170, which matched Thomas up against the dreaded REAL PROPERTY QUESTION. Can he slay the beast? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses If you're a patron at any level, you can ask a coronavirus question to be answered on the next two episodes, and if you're at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law'd Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out the Central Florida Freethought Community We first took a "Stairway to the Supreme Court (?)" back in Episode 236 and then did a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin’s project in Episode 365 (“Every Melody Ever, Part 1”) and interviewed Riehl and Rubin themselves in Episode 367. Finally, you can read the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit for yourself. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
17-3-2020 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 4 seconden
OA368: Your Guide to the Coronavirus, Part 2
Today's episode continues our discussion from Episode 366 on the political, criminal, and civil legal issues surrounding coronavirus and COVID-19 in the United States, including whether the CDC has the authority to waive the fees associated with testing for the virus (they do!) and how this is going to affect civil society (badly). You won't want to miss it -- and you'll be stuck inside your house anyway, so you'll have all the time in the world to listen! We begin, however, with some nuance regarding An Andrew Was Right, the line of Presidential succession, the 12th and 22nd Amendments, and whether Barack Obama can be Joe Biden's Vice-President. Learn that... apparently there's an argument that he could? After that, it's time for the main segment, which covers COVID-19 and the coronavirus, specifically (a) Rep. Katie Porter's amazing cross-examination of the CDC Director and the legal authority; (b) lawsuits against con artists like Jim Bakker and Alex Jones; (c) Congress's response; (d) more on private lawsuits and the specific example of SXSW; and (e) a really interesting question about jury duty and the future of jury trials. After all that, it's time for a dreaded REAL PROPERTY #T3BE. Can you get it right? Just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag #T3BE, your guess, and your reasons therefor and we will shower the winner with... well, you know. Appearances Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we’ll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links In the "A" segment on Presidential succession, we referenced this law review article from Peabody & Gant. Check out the video of Katie Porter's blistering cross-examination of the CDC Director as well as the text of 42 CFR § 71.30. And, of course, you'll want to listen to our original coverage back in Episode 366. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
13-3-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 23 seconden
OA367: Interview with the "All the Music" Creators!
Today's episode is a continuation of Part 1, in which we discuss Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin's "All the Music" project and the history and future of music copyright. We've got a special treat for you in that Damien and Noah are both on the show to answer our (tough!) questions. You won't want to miss this fun discussion! We begin, however, with a listener question/comment about attending law school and balancing costs, risks, and budgets that many of our listeners will undoubtedly find timely. Then it's time to bring on Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin for a fascinating deep dive into the mechanics, the law, and the public policy behind their "All the Music" project. Where should our sympathies lie? What changes to copyright law would better benefit music creators? How do Riehl and Rubin see the fundamental issues in music copyright? You won't want to miss this! After the interview, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 169 involving a tainted witness identification and the permissibility of eliciting testimony in court. Can Thomas start a new winning streak?? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we'll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin's project in Episode 365 ("Every Melody Ever, Part 1"). For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, check out Riehl's fascinating TEDx talk. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
10-3-2020 • 1 uur, 24 minuten, 20 seconden
OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!
Today's episode breaks down force majeure clauses in contracts and takes a look at what might happen in the next few weeks as the world prepares to deal with COVID-19 coronavirus. Along the way we also tackle the news of the week, including the baffling decision out of the DC Circuit not to require Don McGahn to testify. You won't want to miss this episode! We begin, however, with some recurring Vice Presidential/line of succession questions and take a mini-deep-dive into the absolutely bonkers elections of 1796 and 1800 that produced the 12th Amendment, and what it says about vice-presidential qualifications. After that, it's time for our main segment on coronavirus, which includes a deep dive into various cases where contracts have been broken due to "acts of god." Is a global pandemic an "act of god?" Listen, find out, and you'll soon be able to whip out four-part tests if your hotel tries to cancel your room due to coronavirus scares. Then, it's time to pick apart the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 baffling opinion that the House Oversight Committee lacks standing to go to a court to enforce its subpoena over Don McGahn. This is technically an "Andrew Was Wrong," because Andrew did not imagine that any judges with functioning brain cells could have authored an opinion this bad. Find out what's next! After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a tainted witness identification. And remember that you too can play along by sharing out this episode on social media and using the hashtag #T3BE. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For all your Vice Presidential qualification questions, check out the 12th Amendment! Here's the D.C. Circuit's decision in McGahn, and we also referenced Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) and, of course, Opening Arguments's good friend Richard Nixon in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696-97 (1974). Finally, you can read Josh Chafetz's law review article, "Executive Branch Contempt of Congress." -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
6-3-2020 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 36 seconden
OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1
Today's episode brings you our first look at the efforts by Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin to copyright "every melody ever" as part of a way of reconceptualizing copyright law as it applies to music. SPOILER: We're going to have Riehl and Rubin on the show to discuss their work in more depth. We also discuss Chevron deference and a recent dissent by Clarence Thomas that's No Laughing Matter. We begin with a deep dive into the Riehl and Rubin "Every Melody Ever" effort, which builds upon the music copyright episodes we've previously discussed in Episode 236 ("Stairway to the Supreme Court") and Episode 288 ("More on Led Zeppelin"). What exactly are Riehl and Rubin doing, and will it put an end to copyright lawsuits against musicians? Listen and find out! After that, we check out a case (Baldwin v. U.S.) in which the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari -- and the dissent filed by Clarence Thomas. That prompted a headline that got some chuckles last week -- "Clarence Thomas cites Thomas in overruling Thomas" -- and we learn that (of course) this turns out to be no laughing matter, but part of a concerted effort to roll back not only a 2005 Clarence Thomas opinion, National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Svcs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), but Chevron deference itself. Find out why even the howler monkey contingent wanted to take a pass on this case -- but not Clarence Thomas! After all that, it's time for the answer to perhaps the easiest #T3BE ever -- or is it? (It is.) And remember, you can always play along with #T3BE by sharing out the show on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin's project, you can read the write-up in Vice. Finally, you can check out Thomas's cert dissent in Baldwin v. U.S. here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
3-3-2020 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 4 seconden
OA364: Will The Supreme Court Shield Trump's Taxes? (No.)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the just-filed briefs in the Trump v. Mazars litigation pending before the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the House's subpoenas for Trump's tax returns. Is the law on the House's side? (Yes, yes it is.) Are we confident that the Supreme Court will rule the right way in a case this bad? (Maybe?) In any event, you'll want to listen! Announcements Don't forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific! You still have two days to register for Voter Protection Law School Boot Camp! We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong(-ish) from our good friend Randall Eliason on the actual frequency of below-guidelines sentences in light of Roger Stone's downward variance. Then it's time for a deep dive into Mazars v. Trump, where we look at the briefs filed by the parties and evaluate the arguments made by the Trump administration that the subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. How bad are these arguments? They're bad. Then, it's time to tackle the recent defamation lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign against the New York Times regarding a March 2019 op-ed by Max Frankel, in which Mr. Frankel argued that the campaign didn't need to coordinate with Russia to benefit from foreign assistance. Does this pave the way for really good discovery? (No.) After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a law prohibiting providing assistance to undocumented aliens. Can Thomas start a new winning streak? Listen and find out. And, of course, you can always play along on social media by using the hashtag #T3BE! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Remember to check out our YouTube Channel ! If you're thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences. in Mazars v. Trump, check out the President's Jay Sekulow-penned brief as well as the just-filed response by the House of Representatives. You can also read the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2019) decision. Finally, check out the Trump Campaign v. New York Times defamation lawsuit. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
28-2-2020 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 15 seconden
OA363: Good News About Ex-Felons in Florida
Today's episode brings you some good news from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to Florida's effort to restore the vote to felons who have completed their sentences -- and the Republicans' ongoing efforts to stop it. We also revisit the emoluments clause litigations pending in two jurisdictions as well as tackle a novel question from one of our listeners. You won't want to miss it! We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong / Andrew Was Right segment regarding emoluments. Friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman writes in to correct us on two procedural issues and also to venture an opinion that any future emoluments cases would have to be brought by both houses of Congress. Find out why Andrew disagrees and stands by his original recommendation in Episode 361 that Nancy Pelosi authorize a new vote by the full House of Representatives to re-file the case originally brought in Blumenthal v. Trump. Then it's time for our main segment on the breaking decision out of the 11th Circuit striking down the Florida legislature's effort to gut Amendment 4 (which was meant to restore voting rights to ex-felons). Find out why the court ruled the way it did, what happens next, and why there may be cause for optimism in the Sunshine State! After that, it's time for a fascinating, clever, but (sadly) wrong suggestion from a listener regarding a writ of mandamus and the current logjam in Congress. We end, as always, with #T3BE, and Thomas's seven-question winning streak on the line regarding a contract and an unfortunate foreman who suffers an accident prior to starting his duties. Will Thomas prevail? Listen and find out! And don't forget to play along by sharing out the show on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links In the opening segment, Andrew breaks down the Supreme Court case of Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019). You'll want to read the 11th Circuit's opinion for yourself. We last discussed the Florida legislature's efforts to gut Amendment 4 back in Episode 266. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
25-2-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 1 seconde
OA362: The Pardon Power (Or: Blagojevich, Milken, and Trump, Oh My!)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the history and contemporary use of the Presidential pardon power in light of President Trump's decision to pardon and/or commute the sentences of 11 various and sundry monsters. We figure out exactly what the power was supposed to mean and what it means today. We start off with some pre-show teasers. After that, our "A" segment looks at the basics of the Nevada caucus, including the results you can expect the day after this show drops! What weird changes are taking place in Nevada? Listen and find out! As a teaser, we talk about today's sentencing by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Trump loyalist and Nixon afficionado Roger Stone. What does it mean, and does it portend a pardon for Stone? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for our deep dive into Presidential pardons and commutations. We begin with the language in the Constitution (Art. 2, Sec. 2, Cl. 1) and Federalist 74. From there, we move on to the 19th and 20th century uses of pardons, looking at the literature and the relatively recent (and controversial -- deservedly so) pardons by Bill Clinton on the very last day of his presidency. We end the segment, of course, by discussing the assorted and sundry monsters pardoned by Trump, including some names you literally won't believe. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out Federalist 74 on pardons. In terms of contemporary pardon literature, we recommend Margaret Colgate Love's "The Twilight of the Pardon Power" (2010) and Gregory C. Sisk's 2002 article "Suspending the Pardon Power During the Twilight of a Presidential Term." -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
21-2-2020 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 37 seconden
OA361: DC Sides with Trump in Emoluments Case?
Make sure to subscribe to the YouTube Channel! Today's episode features a quick Andrew was... something segment about the ERA. Then we talk about the recent ruling in an emoluments case against Trump. Was it devastating or was it expected? Listen and find out! Then we tackle some great listener questions at the end.
18-2-2020 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 44 seconden
OA360: The Tuesday Afternoon Massacre
Today's episode covers the "Tuesday Afternoon Massacre," in which Donald Trump's tweets prompted his sycophantic Attorney General, William Barr, to overrule career prosecutors and file a "Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum" reversing the government's position from literally the day before in order to urge leniency on convicted criminal Roger Stone. We begin, however, with a less-than-exhaustive (but exhausting) recitation of the various ways Trump has abused his power -- and yes, committed crimes -- in the mere eight days since he was acquitted during impeachment. From firing Lt. Col. Vindman to placing Barr in charge of all future "political investigations," Trump is consolidating his now-seemingly limitless power to run the U.S. government as his private fiefdom, with no consequences whatsoever. Then it's time for our main segment, where we explain just how corrupt the "Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum" really is. Along the way, we explain Pre-Sentencing Reports (PSRs), the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and much, much more! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE that starts off as a question about hearsay before the curveball takes us down the question of witness impeachment. How will Thomas do? There's only one way to find out! And remember that you can play along -- just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we’ll pick a winner! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can check out the Barr memorandum on "political investigations" by clicking here, and Lindsey Graham's confession here. Firing Lt. Col. Vindman is very clearly a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e). We referenced Manafort's nonsense "solitary confinement" claim that was refuted by the DOJ itself a year and a half ago in this filing. You can click here to read the DOJ's initial sentencing memo, and click here to read the "Supplemental and Amended" memorandum filed the next day. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
14-2-2020 • 1 uur, 31 minuten, 33 seconden
OA359: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) & Baseball Law!
Make sure to check out our YouTube video and subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh69ZSnZzc4&t=1s Today's EXTRA LONG episode breaks down the recent ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by the State of Virginia. Since that's the 38th state (more than 3/4ths of the states), and the ERA also passed the Senate and the House of Representatives by more than 2/3 margin... does that mean that the ERA is now part of the Constitution? Listen and find out! We begin by diving right in to the ERA, starting with a lengthy deep dive into the history of the Amendment dating back to the early 1970s... which might make you nostalgic for the Republicans of old. Then, we talk about the complicated issues underlying the passage of the ERA, including the strange case of the 27th Amendment which lay dormant for two centuries before getting ratified by 3/4ths of the states in 1992. And if the 27th Amendment can lay dormant for more than 200 years, why can't the ERA? Well... we'll tell you some of the reasons why (and why not). After that, it's time to break down the Houston Astros cheating scandal, where we talk about our listeners' favorite topic: baseball law! Even if you're not a fan of baseball, we think you'll enjoy our breakdown. And after all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 165 involving jury instructions. Can Thomas keep his winning streak going?? There's only one way to find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links To catch up: We discussed Amendment 27 way back in Episode 11, and the Munsingwear doctrine in Episode 181. The Supreme Court last weighed in on the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982. The two cases we discuss in context are Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Baseball law references: Check out the story in the Athletic quoting Mike Fiers that started it all; this CBS article on how Tyler Glasnow "was tipping his pitches"; the results of the MLB investigation; and the MLB Constitution. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
11-2-2020 • 1 uur, 49 minuten
OA358: Can Trump Block New Yorkers From Global Entry? (No.)
Today's episode takes place in the aftermath of the Trump impeachment sham. We take a minute to heap praise on Sen. Mitt Romney, who had the courage of his convictions, before delving into the obvious fact that this president is now empowered to seek revenge on his enemies, starting with the State of New York. Can he really prevent New Yorkers from using Global Entry? Before that, we have to cover the latest in faux outrage, in which America's Dumbest Congressman (TM), Matt Gaetz, teams up with Charlie Kirk (and others) to ... insist that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had no right to rip up her copy of Trump's State of the Union address. Can that possibly be the law? (No.) Then, it's time to settle in for a nice, long deep dive into New York's Green Light Law, and how that led a Trump lackey to try and retaliate by asserting that New Yorkers will no longer be eligible for the Global Entry program at airports. Is it really possible that Trump's Department of Homeland Security will carry out this threat? Do we have a legal recourse? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE on the preservation of objections for appeal. Can Thomas continue his winning streak? Would you do any better? If so, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we'll pick a winner! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links The operative law that Speaker Pelosi definitely didn't violate -- but President Trump has -- is 18 U.S.C. § 2071. You can read all about New York SB1747B (the "Green Light Law") as well as check out the fact sheet issued by the DMV. We break down the nonsense threat letter written by "Acting Director" of DHS, Chad Wolf. Legal references! Check out 8 U.S.C. § 1365b; 74 FR 59932; 77 FR 5690; and the final rule, 8 C.F.R. 235.12. Finally, in the political aftermath, we mentioned the pending bipartisan bill, House Res. HR 3675. Check out the latest blog post from Marcy Wheeler, which sets out her take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and sets out the embedded legal documents. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
7-2-2020 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 30 seconden
OA357: Ok, WTF Iowa?
We're on for a bonus pod talking about the bungled Iowa Caucus.
5-2-2020 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 41 seconden
OA356: The Future of Flynn (w/guest Marcy Wheeler)
Today's episode features an in-depth interview with investigative journalist and prolific blogger Marcy Wheeler (a.k.a. emptywheel), who has a novel take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn who, as our listeners know, fired Covington & Burling, hired a loon, and has tried to withdraw his guilty plea. Marcy tells us what she thinks this means! We begin with a bit of analysis and some kind words from a listener in light of the disappointing Senate vote to block witnesses that came down late Friday night. Yes, this means the impeachment is effectively over. No, it doesn't mean we're going to stop fighting. After that, it's time to tackle Marcy Wheeler's take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. We do a deep dive into the two most recent sentencing memoranda filed by the government in Flynn's case while trying to figure out what this portends. You don't want to miss it! After all that, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 164 involving a crazed roommate, an aborted murder, and exactly what you could charge him with. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out the latest blog post from Marcy Wheeler, which sets out her take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and sets out the embedded legal documents. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
4-2-2020 • 1 uur, 24 minuten, 24 seconden
OA355: Honest Answers to Impeachment Questions
Today's episode tackles six questions raised during the first day of cross-examination at the impeachment of President Trump and gives you the real answers, from a legal point of view, minus the spin (on both sides)! We tackle the standard for impeachment, past judges who have been impeached, the will of the Framers, and much, much more! ----- Remember that Alan Dershowitz has challenged Andrew to a debate, and we've accepted! Only time will tell if Dersh chickens out. Also: please do CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They’ll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!): “I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office. Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial. I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence. Thank you.” For the Democrats, call them and thank them for their promise to vote for subpoenaing documents and witnesses. That’s all! It’s that easy and you can REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Thank you! ----- We begin the show with a brief analysis of John Bolton's forthcoming book and whether the White House can get a judicial injunction to block publication. (Hint: no.) In analyzing the question, we do a mini-deep-dive into prior restraint, what it means, and why it protects Bolton's right to publish here. Then it's time for the question extravaganza, which covers not only the legal standard for impeachment but the arguments raised by both sides, the question of foreign interference in our elections, how one asserts executive privilege, and so much more! You won't want to miss this! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about a crazed, icepick-wielding roommate with bad luck. Will Thomas be able to keep his win streak going? There's only one way to find out! And remember that you too can play along on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don't let Republicans misrepresent the articles of impeachment. Article I, Abuse of Power contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (the crime of bribery) and Art. II, Obstruction of Congress contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (the crime of obstruction of justice). We referenced Zephyr Teachout's seminal 2009 law review article, "The Anti-Corruption Principle" as well as this analysis by Eisen, Painter, and Tribe on emoluments. Finally, check out Prof. Cunningham's article on the original meaning of "misdemeanors" here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
31-1-2020 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 6 seconden
OA354: A Russian Asset Sues What?
Today's episode breaks down the (spoiler: ridiculous) defamation lawsuit filed by Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton for calling her (sort of) a "Russian asset." We do the patented Opening Arguments reading-the-complaint-backwards method (sort of) to figure out exactly what this means and what comes next. We begin, however, with some instant response to the Saturday Republican "defense" of Trump in the impeachment proceedings. It's... well, it's a thing. Is Jay Sekulow still America's dumbest lawyer? (Hint: yes.) Learn the arguments that they're actually trying to advance, and why they're not actually a thing. And again: please don't forget to CALL YOUR SENATOR! Remember, this is preposterously easy: Call. (202) 224-3121. CALL YOUR SENATORS, if you need help connecting to them, use @resistbot. Text the word RESIST to the bot on Messenger, Twitter, Telegram, or to 50409 on SMS. First time setup is quick, then calling both should take 3-5 minutes. Here’s what you say: “I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office. Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial. I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence. Thank you.” Then, it's time to break down everything about Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit. That means defamation law, Tulsi's lawyers, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, and much, much more. You'll be surprised to learn that Tulsi Gabbard's lawyers are... actual lawyers? But you'll also be surprised to learn some facts about them. Don't go all crazy conspiracy-theory on us, but... definitely listen. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 163 involving contemporaneous notes and whether they're admissible as hearsay. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out Tulsi's defamation lawsuit here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
28-1-2020 • 1 uur, 27 minuten, 1 seconde
OA353: Duplicity and Impeachment
Today's episode won't be a surprise; we're tackling all the developments in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, including a deep dive into the trial brief filed by his cadre of (terrible) lawyers that alleges a strange new legal defense: "duplicity." Figure out what it all means & why there's so much reason to hope on today's show! We begin with a letter a listener received from Sen. Todd Young and a call to action to each of you to CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They'll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!): “I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office. Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial. I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence. Thank you.” For the Democrats, call them and thank them for their promise to vote for subpoenaing documents and witnesses. That's all! It's that easy and you can REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Then, it's time for the main segment, where we delve into all of the supposed "impeachment rules" -- do they really have to drink milk? -- and why S. Res. 438 gives us some reason for optimism. After that, it's time to deconstruct the "cargo cult legal brief" filed by Trump's lawyers. How is it lying nonsense and what's the next bizarre and false argument they're going to make in the trial? We tell you! We also explore the legal doctrine of "duplicity," and show how... duplicitous that argument is in Trump's brief. Then, of course, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE on contemporaneously recorded notes and hearsay. Will Thomas build on his three-question winning streak? Will you get it right? There's only one way to find out.... Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Rules: click here to read Riddick's Senate Procedure, and here for the just-adopted S. Res. 438. Strap in: this is the cargo cult Trump trial brief, and here are the House Articles of Impeachment. Remember that the two crimes covered by the Articles are bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (included in Art. I, Abuse of Power) and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (included in Art. II, Obstruction of Congress). Here's the interview reported by Politico in which Mulvaney conceded there was a quid pro quo (and "get over it")! Finally, if you really want to dig into "duplicity," check out U.S. v. Kearney, 451 F.Supp. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
24-1-2020 • 1 uur, 34 minuten, 21 seconden
OA352: Phil Ferguson Explains the SECURE Act
Believe it or not, Congress apparently does occasionally pass laws still. One such law is the SECURE Act. The stated goals of the legislation involve trying to improve the retirement plans and options for Americans who are struggling to save enough. But was the legislation well-written or will there be unintended consequences? We've got Phil Ferguson of Polaris Financial Planning and host of the Phil Ferguson show to give us the breakdown!
21-1-2020 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 31 seconden
OA351: Who's the Next Justin Amash? Your Guide to Impeachment, Part XVIII (Feat. Lev Parnas)
Today's episode is one big Andrew Was Right! As we predicted, the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate this week, and we unpack all of this week's news in connection with impeachment, including the new GAO report on the Impoundment Control Act, the testimony from Lev Parnas, and much, much more. By the end of this super-sized episode, we'll also give your our predictions as to who might be a surprise profile in courage. The answer WILL surprise you! We begin with the GAO report that's being quoted everywhere. Are media sources getting it right? And what's in the report that's not being talked about? Listen and find out! Did Trump's OMB violate the Impoundment Control Act? (Hint: yes.) Then, we take a look at the transmission of articles, the House managers named, the rules involved, the President's amazing legal team, and much, much more. After all of that, we get to the ultimate question: will this moo the noodle? And if so, who are the Republicans that can be moo'ed? We name names! We also evaluate the Lev Parnas testimony and try and steelman Trump's arguments. Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE on cocaine smuggling, featuring a special guest player (and next week's guest) Phil Ferguson. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the GAO report on the ICA, and the two relevant provisions of that act: 2 U.S.C. § 683 (rescission) and 2 U.S.C. § 684 (deferment). We referred to the 1991 Cheney GAO opinion on "programmatic delays." Click here to read the Parnas SDNY indictment. Finally, here's the evidence on our Mystery Amash Candidate. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
17-1-2020 • 1 uur, 33 minuten, 31 seconden
OA350: Interview with House Candidate Chris Armitage
Chris Armitage is running for the House in Washington's 5th District against Trump devotee Cathy McMorris Rodgers!
14-1-2020 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 11 seconden
Bonus Episode on Iran!
Here's the extra bonus we promised you! As always, Andrew is terrible at lightning rounds so we might not have gotten to the quantity of questions that we'd hoped, but the quality is fantastic and as always, you'll learn a ton!
11-1-2020 • 19 minuten, 18 seconden
OA349: Bolton Will Testify; Iran, Soleimani & So Much More
Today's episode takes on (some of) the two biggest pending news stories right now: (1) the U.S. assassination of Iranian Gen. Soleimani, and (2) the pending impeachment of President Trump. Oh, and we also cover a bunch of other things along the way, including the latest CNN settlement regarding the kid from Covington Catholic, and, well, you'll just have to listen to find out everything! We begin with a pre-show grab bag of mini-stories, including the "drain the swamp" news that outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry has joined the board of a holding company that owns a pipeline company. Is this 100% the same scandal as Burisma hiring Hunter Biden? (Hint: yes.) Then, we delve into some disturbing background information on the Solemani strike and answer the first of many listener questions about it: was the strike arguably justified by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the 9/11 hijackers? After that, it's time for some Yodeling! We look at the current state of the House/Senate standoff on articles of impeachment and what the likely way forward will be. You'll learn that former NSA Director John Bolton is willing to testify; the question is whether two more Republicans care about that at all. Finally, we cover the latest news that CNN settled the defamation lawsuit brought by Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic relating to the video shared by CNN nearly a year ago. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE 161 -- this one is a constitutional law question regarding anti-discrimination laws. Can Thomas get it right?? Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Pre-show links: (a) Rick Perry rejoins the board of a pipeline company; (b) the Hofeller Files; and (c) the 5th Circuit's decision on Trump's stupid wall, which we last covered in Episodes 243 and 255. Iranian strike links: (a) Washington Post story on Pompeo masterminding the strike; (b) the Heather Timmons piece in Quartz warning us that Trump was listening to Rapture loons like Pence and Pompeo 18 months ago; and (c) Mary Lee Bigham-Bartling's 2018 doctoral dissertation on Rapture theology. This is the 2001 AUMF, and you can also verify that Solemani is named in neither the 9/11 Commission Report nor the 2019 State Department Fact Sheet. We also quoted from a VOA News report on Sunnis "celebrating" the death of Solemani. On impeachment: the important thing is to click here to read John Bolton's public decision to comply with a Senate subpoena. Finally, although you can't read the CNN/Covington Catholic settlement, you can still watch both the original Sandmann video, and the updated video released a few days later. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
10-1-2020 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 5 seconden
OA348: The State of the Secular States, with Alison Gill
Today's show features an interview with American Atheists’ National Legal and Policy Director Alison Gill! American Atheists has just released their 2019 State of the Secular States Report, which you can find here. With how much the Trump Administration and the Christian Right have tried to enshrine conservative Christianity into our nation's laws, American Atheists has worked hard to bring us this comprehensive report detailing which states have good laws in place to protect the separation of Church and State. Some states are doing better than others, and some states might surprise you! The report provides a great blueprint of action for how we can work to fight the theocrats on a state by state basis.
7-1-2020 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 35 seconden
OA347: Pennhurst and the Voter Purge in Georgia
Today's episode tackles a bunch of important developments in the new year -- and not all of them are even Trump-related! Our main segment features a deep dive into the recent voter purge decision in Georgia and what that has to do with the Eleventh Amendment and the Pennhurst doctrine. We also tackle the latest scare meme regarding 2020 and update you on all the developments in pending litigation regarding Donald Trump. Buckle up, it's going to be a fun ride! We begin with a quick off-the-white-board note about the "$100,000 verdict" in the Alex Jones defamation lawsuit that isn't what it appears to be. After that, we take a look at a recent meme that's circulating regarding 2020. Should you be concerned about the legal implications of writing 1/1/20 on your documents?? Why or why not? Then it's time to check in on the status of several pending cases involving Congressional subpoenas, including a decision that's being mischaracterized as a setback for impeachment (it isn't), and a bunch of irons that are still in the fire. Then it's time for our deep dive into Pennhurst and the recent denial of injunctive relief to Stacey Abrams's organization dedicated to restoring the voter rolls in 2020 in Georgia. Find out what happened & what's going to happen next. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE in the New Year: can a bakery tell a flaky flour supplier to go clownhorn itself? Don't forget to play along via social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the New York Times article about Alex Jones's lawsuit. The article we referenced on FOIA documents connected to OMB from Kate Brannen at Just Security is here. Filings: click here to read the Order of Dismissal in the Kupperman lawsuit, and here to read the Court's Order denying injunctive relief in the voter registration lawsuit. Oh, and feel free to brush up on your Supreme Court decisions by reading Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
3-1-2020 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 41 seconden
OA346: Faithless Electors (w/Lawrence Lessig)
Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Prof. Lawrence Lessig, counsel for the Colorado faithless electors, about the electoral college system. We also go through the answer to last week's #T3BE about the differences and similarities between burglary and larceny. You won't want to miss it! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
31-12-2019 • 58 minuten, 48 seconden
OA345: How John Roberts Saved Christmas (Or: Everything You Need to Know About Nixon v. US)
Happy Holidays, everyone! Today, we tackle a number of issues that managed to distract us over the holidays regarding impeachment and do a deep dive into Nixon v. US -- all while weaving in a John-Roberts-as-the-Grinch-Who-Saved-the-Country-From-Mitch-McConnell story. Can it happen? Absolutely. Will it? We don't know. Do you need to listen? ABSOLUTELY. We begin, however, with the recent filing by the lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee suggesting it might "impeach Donald Trump again." What on earth does that mean, and why is he taking this position? We explain it all. Then it's time for a brief foray into the debate between Noah Feldman, Laurence Tribe (and Jonathan Turley for good measure) as to whether Trump has really been impeached given that the House has not yet transmitted the articles to the Senate. As we all know, that question is really academic -- the real issue is: what power does Mitch McConnell have to transform impeachment into a sham proceeding? The answer lies in a 1993 Supreme Court case, Nixon v. US , 506 U.S. 224 -- and it may just reside in Chief Justice John Roberts. You won't want to miss this deep dive storytelling. After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving burglary, larceny, and the world's angriest ex-employee. Remember to play along on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the House's filing before the D.C. Circuit in the McGahn subpoena litigation. In the battle of expert turncoats, we have Noah Feldman arguing that Trump hasn't been impeached, and Jonathan Turley arguing that he has. Finally, make sure you read Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
27-12-2019 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 35 seconden
OA344: Did the Mormon Church Really Hide $100 Billion in Assets From the IRS? (Feat. Bryce Blankenagel)
Today's episode combines a deep dive into the IRS's tax exemptions with some breaking news about allegations made by a whistleblower that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (that is, the Mormon Church) has hidden over $100 billion in assets that should otherwise be taxed. Grab some yarn and pushpins, and we'll try and disentangle this conspiracy together! Joining us is the host of the Naked Mormonism and Glass Box podcasts, Bryce Blankenagel, who has first-hand knowledge of some of these events and has done serious work trying to parse through the documents and help us figure out what the mainstream reporting on this story might have missed! Along the way you'll learn a ton about the various corporate entities owned by the Mormon Church. After that, we return to a popular #T3BE question involving whether the court can instruct the jury as to one of the elements of a crime. Can Thomas add to his amazing one-question win streak??? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the whistleblower's 78-page letter to the IRS, and here to watch his 7-minute video summary. NOTE: We do not endorse all of the claims and/or analysis made in that video. Check out 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) for the statutory provisions regarding non-profits, and here to read the special rules as to when the IRS can investigate or audit a church. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
24-12-2019 • 1 uur, 24 minuten, 5 seconden
OA343: The End of the ACA? (Also: Some Stuff About Impeachment)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the recent 5th Circuit ruling you may have heard about that... is supposed to have declared the ACA unconstitutional? How can that possibly be the case? We break it all down for you. Oh, and yeah, we also talk about the fact that the third president in American history has been impeached. We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Wrong segment about the procedural history underlying the Syed appeal. Then, it's time to break down the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion. How is it possible? How is the case ripe? Wasn't all of this decided in 2012 in the NFIB v. Sebelius case? We explain everything you need to know -- and what you need to know about the future -- in this main segment. Then, it's time to tackle some impeachment questions like, "what the hell is going on?" and "is it true that the President can't be pardoned for crimes over which he's been impeached?" (No.) You definitely won't want to miss this one. After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving jury instructions during a criminal trial. Can Thomas build on his amazing 1-question winning streak? There's only one way to know for sure! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We tackled the Syed case for the very last time in Episode 340. You can read the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion here. Finally, on impeachment, don't forget to check out (a) Episode 90 where we explain that Trump can probably pardon himself, and also (b) Laurence Tribe's article that changed how the House handles impeachment. Oh, man, and if you missed last episode's humor, check out “Larry ‘Bud’ Melman” advertising “Mr. Larry’s Toast on a Stick” from the old Late Night With David Letterman show. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
20-12-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 51 seconden
OA342: Why the Supreme Court Should Scare You Even More Than It Already Does
Today's episode takes a deep dive into something the Supreme Court didn't do last week -- namely, it declined to grant certiorari to reverse an obviously incorrect decision of the Sixth Circuit (EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier), in which that court upheld a blatantly unconstitutional Kentucky law mandating that women undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound and listen to a script before undergoing an abortion. We begin, however, with a delightful Frozen-themed listener question about the extent of copyright law and whether Josh Gad can start singing songs about how Brett Kavanaugh is a monster. (Hint: this is a fantastic idea.) We truly drill down on all the different ramifications of when you create an original character for yourself versus your employer. After that, it's time for the main sequence deep dive on EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier and exactly why it's surprising -- and depressing -- that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in this case. Then, it's time to check in on #T3BE and see if Thomas can get this homebuying question right. Do you get to cancel a sale when the buyer hides water damages, and if so, why? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links If you want to go down memory lane, check out "Larry 'Bud' Melman" advertising "Mr. Larry's Toast on a Stick" from the old Late Night With David Letterman show. You can read the 6th Circuit's opinion in EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019) for yourself. The Kentucky law at issue is KRS 311.727. The 4th circuit decision we referenced is Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Circ. 2014). Before the Supreme Court, check out (a) the cert petition; (b) the State's opposition; and (c) the petitioner's reply brief. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
17-12-2019 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 41 seconden
OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espionza)
Today's episode breaks down the Articles of Impeachment currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Find out Andrew's disappointment, the hidden clause that lets the Senate consider Mueller evidence (if they want), and what these articles can't let the Senate evaluate in determining whether to impeach Trump. You won't want to miss it! Oh, and also, you'll get a mini-deep-dive on the Espinoza decision and so much more! We begin with an important listener question about whether Donald Trump could plead the 5th Amendment during the impeachment process. The answer might surprise you -- and you'll enjoy the deep dive into the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination. Then, during the main segment, we tackle the two articles of impeachment in depth, evaluating what crime(s) the articles consider, how they respond to the Republican arguments, and much, much more. After that, we're excited to bring you a segment in which law students can win up to $10,000 in an essay-writing contest that also gives you a chance to make a real difference in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. Then, of course, it's time for another #T3BE, this time about a homeowner who paints over some water damage. Is there a viable reason for the buyer to rescind the contract, or is it "buyer beware"? Listen and play along on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Our opening segment discusses the 1957 Supreme Court case of Watkins v. U.S. and also references this 1956 law review article. Our omnibus impeachment explainer is Episode 319 (you can also read the transcript for that episode). This is the text of Rep. Nadler's proposed two articles of impeachment. Finally, if you're a law student, please do check out the FFRF essay contest! Resources: (a) Art. X, Sec. 6 of the Montana Constitution; (b) Montana Code Ann. § 15-30-3101 et seq.; and (c) the FFRF amicus brief in Espinoza. Also, don't forget that we broke down Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court ruled way back in Episodes 14, 17, and 18, and then dissected the travesty of an opinion in Episodes 82 and 85. Phew! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
13-12-2019 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 5 seconden
OA340: OA and Serial, or, Why the Supreme Court Denied Cert in Syed v. Maryland
Perhaps against our better judgment, we once again return to the Adnan Syed case narrated so beautifully in season 1 of Serial. If you haven't heard our take on the case itself, you might want to go back and listen to Episode 107. Today, we're not discussing the underlying merits but rather what the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled and why the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Love us or hate us, if you love Serial, you won't want to miss this episode! We begin, however, with a look at how President Trump has reshaped the federal courts by the numbers. Is it as bleak as some sources say? Or is there merit to the counter-argument that Trump isn't doing anything much differently than his predecessors -- it's just that we're in the middle of his Presidency, so of course his effect is outsized. We delve beneath the op-eds to tell you what the cold hard facts are. Then, it's time to describe exactly what's happened to Adnan Syed in the courts since Serial, culminating with a 4-3 decision in the Maryland Court of Appeals that was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court when they denied certiorari last week. What does it all mean? We break it down for you. After that, it's time for a bonus mini-"Breakin' Down the Law" segment integrated with Thomas's fiendishly hard #T3BE question. If you've ever wondered about motions for new trials and Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, well, this is the show for you! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first broke down the Adnan Syed case (and Serial's portrayal of it) in Episode 107. You can check out the Brookings article we referenced ("Trump Has Reshaped the Judiciary But Not As Much As You Might Think"). For the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion (State v. Syed), click here. Then you can read Syed's cert petition, the State's response, and Syed's reply. Ultimately, the Supreme Court just denied the petition without comment.\ Finally, the underlying case we discussed regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
10-12-2019 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 33 seconden
OA339: Who is Jonathan Turley, Anyway?
Today's episode is a timely impeachment-themed deep dive into the testimony of George Washington University law professor -- and legitimate legal scholar -- Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee. How should you evaluate his arguments? We walk you through them, of course! We begin, however, with a new segment: the Wingnut Lightning Round(TM), in which we evaluate -- or rather, make fun of -- two preposterous new lawsuits filed this week by two complete idiots. After that, it's time for an #AndrewWasWrong about Ronald Burris, the interim Senator nominated by Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's unexpired Senate seat. Find out the twists and turns to this rather fascinating story as a side bonus to Andrew's well-deserved comeuppance. Then, it's time for the main segment: the news that the House is going to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump despite the testimony of Jonathan Turley. How do the lone Republican-called witness's arguments stack up? (Hint: they're not good.) Surely the Republicans wouldn't have called someone who's on the record saying the exact opposite of what he's presently saying 20 years ago, right? (Guess.) After all that, it's time for a fiendishly hard #T3BE about a trial, a videotape, and a jogging plaintiff. You won't want to miss it -- and you'll want to play along! Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Oh man, you just have to read batshit-crazy Rep. Devin Nunes's eleventy million trillion dollar lawsuit against CNN. For more of the Roland Burris story, check out Wikipedia. Click here to read Turley's testimony for yourself. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
6-12-2019 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 15 seconden
OA338: Nondelegation and the "Administrative State"
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the nondelegation doctrine in light of a recent Kavanuagh comment on a case... in which the Supreme Court didn't even grant certiorari. Is Andrew panicking? (No.) Listen and find out why not! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong on taxation that calls back to OA 336. How exactly is stock income taxed? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment, which is a deep dive into the "administrative state" and specificially the "nondelegation doctrine" at issue in U.S. v. Gundy. Why did this last week signal the beginning of the end for Andrew & Thomas? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a listener question/comment on LIHEAP that helps contextualize how this program works in low-income communities. You won't wan't to miss it! Then, of course, it's time for #T3BE -- the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #155 about a tenant who takes possession of an apartment only to find the previous tenant still inside. How can.. the landlord win? Listen and find out! Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For an update on Chevron deference, check out our Episodes 40 and 136. In terms of Auer deference, check out our explainers in Episode 266 and 293. To get up to speed on the nondelegation doctrine, read Gundy v. U.S., 139 S.Ct. 2116 (2019). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
3-12-2019 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 30 seconden
OA337: How to Talk to Your (Republican) Family About Impeachment
Share this episode with your (open-minded) Republican friends, family, and co-workers! We're happy to bring you this Thanksgiving Special a day early in which we break down the latest "trial balloon" defense of Trump's conduct: that Trump was actually encouraging a legitimate investigation into a top-secret conspiracy in Ukraine to hack the DNC servers in 2016 and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. If you don't know what "CrowdStrike" and "Chalupa" mean, you won't want to miss this one! We begin on that key issue, breaking down the sole legal issue at stake in impeachment -- bribery -- and exactly what Congress needs to show in order to impeach and remove the President from office. From there, we turn to the next likely defense from Trumpland and explain exactly why it is bananas-in-pajamas-level bonkers. After that lengthy breakdown, it's time to check in on the status of various lawsuits seeking to compel witnesses to appear before various House committees. What's going on, and is there any cause for optimism? Listen and find out! Then, as always, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a curious fact-pattern involving a landlord, a new tenant, an old tenant who won't move out, and a surprising legal result. Can he figure out why? Can you? Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. We broke down Amb. Sondland's testimony in Episode 335. But don't just take our word for it! You can read the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), for yourself and figure out what it takes to prove bribery. We also cited to (a) ADNI Joseph Maguire's testimony before Congress; (b) the whistleblower's complaint (which we previously broke down in Episode 318 and a special bonus episode); (c) internal evidence as reported in the New York Times that Trump's lawyers briefed him on the whistleblower complaint in late August, before aid to Ukraine was restored; (d) the TELCON (edited transcript) of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House; (e) the CrowdStrike report from their own website; (f) Trump's April 2017 press interview in which he began peddling the CrowdStrike conspiracy; (g) Fiona Hill's opening statement in her testimony to Congress; (i) the reporting surrounding Sen. Kennedy's appearance on Fox News Sunday; (j) the 2017 Politico story upon which Sen. Kennedy purported to rely; and (k) Vol. 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the 2016 Election, authored by Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). Phew! In the closing segment, we referred to Rubin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 1301 (1998). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
28-11-2019 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 19 seconden
OA336: Warren's Wealth Tax & a CRA for SCOTUS?
Today's episode takes a deep dive into Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Is it constitutional? How will the arguments shape up? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an interesting proposal for a "Congressional Review Act" for the Supreme Court by law professor -- and professional Supreme-Court-fixer -- Ganesh Sitaraman. Will this proposal meet with more approval than Sitaraman's previous "lottery" idea? Then we do a deep dive into the history of taxes in this country, looking at two very old cases -- one from 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429), and one from way back in 1796 (Hylton v. U.S.). We also cover the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, as well as check in on the most recent Supreme Court tax ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts, the NFIB v. Sebelius 2012 Obamacare decision. What do we learn from all that? Well, you'll just have to give it a listen! After all that, it's time for the answer to what some are calling the easiest #T3BE question ever about falling off a ladder. Are they right? Was Thomas? There's only one way to know for sure! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. You can read Prof. Sitaraman's latest article in The Atlantic suggesting a "Congressional Review Act for the Supreme Court." (We previously broke down the Congressional Review Act way back in Episode 61.) We last touched on Prof. Sitaraman's "How to Save the Supreme Court" lottery proposal somewhat less favorably in Episode 294. Head on over to Elizabeth Warren's campaign site to read her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax" proposal. Resources for tax law: Hylton v. U.S. (1796); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Finally, you can check out the scholars letters submitted in support of Warren's tax plan as well as the Johnson & Dellinger law review article, "The Constitutionality of a National Wealth Tax." -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
26-11-2019 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 51 seconden
OA335: This Week in Impeachment
Today's episode breaks down the significance of a packed week in Republican witness testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about the potential impeachment of Donald Trump. We continue to place everything in the context of proving that Donald Trump committed impeachable bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), including evaluating the (increasingly desperate) defenses being raised by House Republicans. We begin, however, with a slight Andrew Was Wrong and some really interesting listener feedback about the 2019 Ukraine election. Then, it's time to take a look at the week in impeachment, with a particular focus on Amb. Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor who was hand-picked to help run the "shadow foreign policy" in Ukraine, and exactly why he's such a devastating witness. We also tease apart the legality of the OMB hold and the crafting of the narrative to show the elements of bribery. Then, it's time for a brief update on the Trump v. Mazars litigation and the significance of the administrative hold put in place by the Supreme Court. Does that mean John Roberts is 100% in the tank for Trump? (No.) After all that, it's time for a NEW ERA in #T3BE as we move to a new set of questions! This one asks about a potential lawsuit for a guy who falls off his ladder. Did Thomas get it right? Listen and find out -- and play along with us on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. Remember that this is all about Trump's bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). Oh, the lies! We debunked the insane "the government secretly changed the whistleblower form" conspiracy back in Episode 320 and even created a handy link for you to share with Uncle Clarence to help convince him! On Trump v. Mazars, you can check out Trump's brief requesting a stay and the order issued by Chief Justice Roberts. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
22-11-2019 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 21 seconden
OA334: IVF, LIHEAP & the Russians
Today's episode features a deep dive into what used to be a core Republican program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Did you know that every year, over a thousand people -- most of them with homes -- freeze to death in the U.S.? Did you know that both political parties used to want to do something about that? We begin, however, with some listener feedback from our popular recent Episode 330 in which we broke down a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding "pre-embryos" and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Hear from a published scientist and an IVF mom! Then, it's time for our deep dive into LIHEAP, 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. You'll learn all about the problem of home heating in this country and what we do about it... at least for now. You'll also learn exactly how much the Trump administration would like to fund this program, which you won't be surprised to learn is $0. But that's not all! Our "C" segment features a lengthy explanation from election law expert Beth Kingsley who answers the question "Could Donald Trump just hire Vladimir Putin to work on his 2020 re-election campaign if he discloses it?" The answer is more complicated than you'd expect and just might surprise you. After all that, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE 153 about the admissibility of a doctor's note in court. Will Thomas get this one right?? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. We discussed both the IVF decision and the election hypothetical back in Episode 330. You can read the LIHEAP law for yourself; it's 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. The data we discussed on the episode comes from Olivia Wein's study, and the funding numbers come from this government document. This is the link to the FEC's guidance we discussed in the "C" segment. Finally, check out an actual IVF contract, thanks to Valerie Smith! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
19-11-2019 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 20 seconden
OA333: Bonus Impeachment Coverage!
There was so much to discuss, we had to record an extra episode!
16-11-2019 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 37 seconden
OA332: Your Two New Best Friends, Bill Taylor and George Kent
Today's episode ran so long that we're going to give you a BONUS episode tomorrow. What did we get through? Well, we break down almost everything about the first day of televised public hearings in the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry. You absolutely, positively do not want to miss this! We begin, however, with a plug for our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. After that, it's time to tackle a wide variety of legal topics related to the Taylor and Kent testimony, including: (a) how their testimony fits into the elements of the crime of bribery; (b) the Republicans' evolving defenses of Donald Trump; (c) the two lawyers picked to handle the bulk of the questioning; and much, much more. Along the way, we also discuss the significance of the D.C. Circuit's en banc refusal to rehear the subpoena decision in Trump v. Mazars and what comes next, as well as the status of Mick Mulvaney's continuing efforts to defy the Congressional subpoenas. After all that, it's time for a milestone #T3BE involving hearsay and expert witness testimony. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. Remember: this is about bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201. This is the transcript of Sen. Kennedy on Face the Nation. In terms of dirty tricks, here's the link to Taylor's closed-door deposition, where Castor outed the whistleblower, and here's a link to his laughing during Fiona Hill's deposition. BONUS! Here's the Politico article we rip apart in Episode 333 ("There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office") and... god help me.. the National Review article that actually gets it right. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
15-11-2019 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 35 seconden
OA331: Who Sues "Oh No Ross and Carrie" with Carrie Poppy & Matthew Strugar
Today's episode is the final -- and dare we say it, the best -- part of our live show in Los Angeles where we were joined by the co-host of the popular podcast "Oh No Ross And Carrie" Carrie Poppy, and the show's lawyer, Matthew Strugar. Join us for a fascinating discussion as to who's threatened to sue the show and why.... And stick around for a special LIVE #T3BE! After that, we also answer last week's #T3BE about breach of contract. Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question win streak? Listen and find out! Show Notes & Links You should definitely be listening to Oh No Ross and Carrie! We last had Carrie and Matthew on our show in Episode 77.
12-11-2019 • 54 minuten, 1 seconde
OA330: The Impeachment Inquiry Explainer (& Pre-Embryos in Connecticut)
Today's episode is everything you need to walk your open-minded Uncle Clarence -- you know, the one who watches Fox News, but not religiously, and isn't quite sure what all this impeachment nonsense is about -- through the key buzzwords of the week. And, as a bonus, we discuss an important decision regarding in vitro fertilization in Connecticut. We begin, however, with the Explainer. How is this process different from (and more fair than) the Clinton impeachment? What is an impeachment "inquiry?" And why -- oh god, why?!? -- is everyone so focused on quid pro quo? You'll find out the answers to all these questions and much, much more. After that, it's time to examine Bilbao v. Goodwin, which delves into the tricky question of what happens to a couple's frozen pre-embryos after they break up? This case has been making the rounds in both pro-life and pro-choice circles -- we'll tell you exactly what it stands for and what comes next. Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a breach-of-contract question. Can he keep his winning streak going? Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For the full breakdown of the House Impeachment Inquiry resolution, H.R. 660, check out our discussion in Episode 328. And you can click here to read Bilbao v. Godwin. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
8-11-2019 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 38 seconden
OA329: Gun Buying and Jury Duty in America
Today's show is something we absolutely love to do, which is listener questions! Our listeners pose some truly intelligent, well thought-out, and deep-dive worthy questions. Today's episode features two such deep dives inspired by our listeners. The first is regarding DC v Heller, and whether it applies to gun ownership or gun sales, or both. The second question is a chance for Andrew to talk about jury duty, and what makes a good juror. Classic OA Tuesday deep dives!
5-11-2019 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 5 seconden
OA328: The Impeachment Inquiry Resolution! (H.R. 660)
This week's Rapid Response Friday breaks down exactly what's in H.R. 660, the impeachment inquiry resolution, and what it means for the ongoing process. We also help you digest the legal significance of Alexander Vindman's testimony and much, much more, so strap in! We begin, however, with Thomas's favorite segment -- Andrew Was Wrong. Here, Andrew issues a correction regarding baseball law and the chemistry of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from our popular Pizza, Beer & Guns episode. After that, it's time for a trip up Yodel Mountain where we digest H.R. 660, the soon-to-be-passed resolution authorizing the House Intelligence Committee to take the lead on the impeachment inquiry. Is it "still without any due process for the President," as the White House claims? [No.] As a bonus, we also break down the companion change to the rules adopted by the House Rules Committee pursuant to the resolution that's managed to confuse a number of media outlets. But that's not all! While we're high atop Yodel Mountain, we also break down the significance of Alexander Vindman's testimony this week regarding the Trump administration's holding hostage of aid to Ukraine pending an "investigation" into Burisma, and Hunter and Joe Biden. After all that, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a dreaded real property question -- this one about whether a grantee can revoke an easement. Those are words! Will Thomas decipher them? Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read H.R. 660, and here for the companion change to the rules. Here's the Democratic summary of those changes. This is the transcript of Alexander Vindman's opening statement, plus more on his testimony from the Washington Post and the (failing) New York Times, as well as the Politico story on how some Republicans are pushing back against attacks on Vindman. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
1-11-2019 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 49 seconden
OA327: Pizza, Beer, and Guns!
It's an all American episode, complete with 3 dives! First we have a 9th Circuit ruling on Domino's Pizza to discuss, related to accessibility concerns with their app. Then, you know those horrible, unfunny, obnoxious Bud commercials with the knights and the king and all that? Turns out in addition to being terrible, they may also be potentially tortious! They made some very specific claims about MillerCoors beers using corn syrup in their beer they have gotten them into legal trouble. And finally, we round out this all-American ep with guns - a breakdown of the Dickey Amendment.
29-10-2019 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 55 seconden
OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan
Today's episode tackles all your latest developments from high atop Yodel Mountain, including the national security-threatening stunt led by America's Dumbest Congressman, Matt Gaetz, as well as the significance of Bill Taylor's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. We begin with a brief overview of the "due process" argument throughout history with an eye towards how it applies to the Trump impeachment. From there, we move to a specific application: the (false) claim by Matt Gaetz and others that the House impeachment inquiry violates Trump's rights of due process. Along the way, we'll learn what a SCIF is and why it was such a big deal -- a criminal big deal -- that Gaetz and others violated it. Then, it's time to dive deeply into Bill Taylor's testimony and how that fits into the overall impeachment picture and whether Trump is guilty of bribery with respect to Ukraine. (Hint: yes.) After all that, it's time for another fabulous #T3BE about an inexperienced innkeeper and a cleaning company that doesn't work on Sundays. Play along on social media, and remember to #T3BE in your answer! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today! This is the WIRED article we referenced on the technical data regarding SCIFs, and these are the 174-page technical guidelines set forth by the DNI. Laws! Obstruction of justice is 18 U.S.C. § 1505, bribery is 18 U.S.C. § 201, and the relevant portion of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is 2 U.S.C. § 683. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
25-10-2019 • 1 uur, 28 minuten, 30 seconden
OA325: Putin's Puppet? The Open Skies Treaty
Today's show features a few segments from the LA live show, including a medium dive on the Open Skies Treaty. We break down what it is, what Trump is intending to do with it, and why his behavior is incredibly... weird. We also break down a story involving Covington and Burling winning legal fees against the government. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
22-10-2019 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 45 seconden
OA324: Trump's 9 Crimes and Misdemeanors
With impeachment in full swing, today's episode reminds you that we already have more than enough evidence to impeach & remove Donald Trump from office for the nine distinct crimes documented by Robert Mueller in Vol. II of the Mueller Report. We begin, however, with a pre-show update: the 4th Circuit has just voted to rehear the Maryland emoluments lawsuit en banc on Dec. 12, 2019. After that, it's time to check in on the latest Republican argument: that Democrats need to authorize an impeachment inquiry via a full floor vote in the House of Representatives. Learn why Nancy Pelosi said "Nope!" and why that might be shots fired... at the Supreme Court. Then, it's time for the deep dive into the nine unambiguous, inarguable crimes that we already have proof Donald Trump has already committed, thanks to Vol. II of the Mueller Report. You will get a choose-your-own-adventure guide for how to steer your disbelieving Uncle Frank through the Mueller Report and prove that Trump acted with criminally corrupt intent to obstruct justice. "The cover-up is [still] worse than the crime"... isn't it? After all that, it's time for an all-new #T3BE involving a hate crime. Is the Intellectual Dark Web correct that such things are protected by "free speech?" If not, why are they wrong? Play along on social media -- remember to #T3BE with your answer! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's the latest ruling from the 4th Circuit on the emoluments litigation. Don't forgot to follow along with this week's episode by reading the actual Mueller Report. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
18-10-2019 • 1 uur, 29 minuten, 2 seconden
OA323: LA Live Show QnA!
The live show in Los Angeles was an absolute blast. We had so much great content that we're going to use it in bits and pieces here for the next few Tuesday shows. But if you'd like to hear the entire live show right away, and also hear the special intro Brian and Thomas cooked up for it, go to patreon.com/law right now! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
15-10-2019 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 51 seconden
OA322: Blackouts, Taxes & House Rules
Today's episode breaks down the recent news relating to (1) legal efforts to subpoena Donald Trump's taxes, (2) the latest kerfuffle over the standing House rules and whether the impeachment inquiry is "unconstitutional" and "illegal" (it isn't), with a bonus (3) rant about PG&E's blackouts -- excuse me, "public safety power shutoff events" in Northern California. Phew! We begin with a discussion surrounding PG&E's decision to shut off power for up to five days, affecting potentially two million people. These blackouts will have a tremendous economic and social cost -- and may cost lives, as well. Why are they happening? What's the law? Can we do anything about it? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for a deep dive into breaking legal news this week. You may have heard that a court ordered the release of Trump's tax returns, and then that order was immediately appealed and blocked. What does it all mean and why? We dive deeply into this issue, and on the way you'll learn about Younger abstention, § 1983 cases, and much, much more! After that, it's time for a look at the latest goalpost-moving excuse by the Republicans, this time the honestly-not-very-good argument that the impeachment inquiry is "illegal" unless authorized by the entire House of Representatives. Find out why this just isn't so. Then, it's time for a follow-up #T3BE to last week's child-on-thin-ice. This time, we want to know: can her parents sue the day care? Listen and find out! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! The "de-energization events" are authorized, at least implicitly, by Section 451 of the California Public Utilities Code, as further interpreted by recent rules. PG&E, of course, is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The anti-injunction act is 22 U.S.C. § 2283 , and you can brush up on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) while you're at it. We discussed the OLC memos in Episode 290, and then again in Episode 300. You should definitely read Judge Marrero's order, even though it's been appealed to the Second Circuit. Here are the standing House Rules (check out pp. 322-323), and the 2015 CRS report referenced during the show. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
11-10-2019 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 6 seconden
OA321: More on #Brexit
Today's episode is an interview and a deep dive with British solicitor Emma McClure, who helps walk us through the recent activity regarding #Brexit and also gives us some signposts as to what's next for our wacky neighbor across the pond. This episode is a follow-up to our first #Brexit show, which was Episode 315. Find out what, if anything, Andrew got wrong in that show, while Emma also helps us break down the U.K. Supreme Court's (shocking to Andrew) 11-0 decision that PM Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament was an abuse of his powers and done for an improper purpose. We compare legal systems and learn a ton about what law is like in England. You won't want to miss this episode! After the interview, we head back to a tricky #T3BE regarding a 12-year-old who sneaks out and falls in thin ice. This is one of those questions that Andrew admits he would have gotten wrong! Did Emma or Thomas manage to get it right?? Listen and find out! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]! Download Link
8-10-2019 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 29 seconden
OA320: The (Idiotic) Hearsay Defense
Today's episode is a must-listen, timely deep dive as to what exactly constitutes "hearsay" -- and why the latest Republican talking points to discredit the whistleblower complaint as being "based on hearsay" are nonsense piled upon nonsense. Remember that this your LAST CHANCE to come see Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We begin today's show with an (unfortunately lengthy) Andrew Was Wrong segment about the Javelin missile, Al Gore's non-tie-breaking non-vote in 1999, and more. But was Andrew actually right about anything? (Maybe one or two things.) Then, it's time for the main segment in which Andrew breaks down exactly why "hearsay" isn't the same as "stuff you maybe kinda overheard in the neighborhood." Learn what hearsay actually is, and why the latest round of unhinged Republican talking points are even more laughable than they seem. After that, it's time for a frenzied visit back to Yodel Mountain, where we explain exactly what happens next in the House impeachment investigation. As a bonus, we tackle a question many of you asked on social media: what exactly does happen if President Trump is removed from office via impeachment? Could he run again?? Listen and find out! We conclude, as always, with #T3BE, including next week's guest, solicitor Emma McClure, and a wandering 12-year-old who falls through the ice. Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Here's the latest news from The Guardian about the President committing bribery on national television. And yes, it's bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) and not extortion or any other crime. Curious about that 1955 law review article summarizing that grand juries can issue indictments based on nothing but expert hearsay testimony? We've got you covered. And if you liked that, you probably also want to check out the Federal Rules of Evidence on hearsay, Rule 801 et seq. If you see anyone sharing the absolute lie propagated in the Federalist that the intel community "secretly gutted" the requirement that whistleblower complaints be based on first-hand knowledge, you can send them to the May 2018 form 401. If you need a quick response, just share out this graphic that clearly shows it's a complete fabrication. Oh, and don't forget to curl up with this subpoena served on Rudy Giuliani. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
4-10-2019 • 1 uur, 40 minuten, 53 seconden
OA319: Your Guide To Impeachment!
Today's Deep Dive can't help but stay high atop Yodel Mountain. We imagine that by the time you're hearing this, the House will have voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. Curious about what that means, why it matters, and what happens next? Then this is the show for you! Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We begin, however, with a brief update on #Brexit; no, we haven't forgotten that our closest ally is also suffering under the weight of an insane leader hell-bent on a racist policy that everyone knows is an impending disaster. But unlike the U.S., it looks like the U.K. Supreme Court.... still understands the rule of law? What a novel concept. Then, it's time for a deep dive into impeachment, where we tackle: Exactly why President Trump's conduct towards Ukraine in particular is so reprehensible; Why beginning an "impeachment inquiry" matters; What the Nixon articles of impeachment looked like; The Clinton impeachment timeline; ALL the ways Mitch McConnell and the Republicans can try and screw this up; and much, much more. Then, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE involving real property, and specifically, the condition to a contract requiring the buyer to procure a loan at 10% and whether that allows the seller to back out even if the buyer turns over the purchase price. Find out if Thomas got this one right! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! This is the Time reporting on Ukraine from which Andrew quoted; and this is the New York Times story about Manafort turning over polling data to Akhmetov. Politico first reported the OMB hold on aid to Ukraine on August 28, nearly a month ago. An ongoing proceeding makes it easier to prove obstruction of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Click here to read the Nixon articles of impeachment, and (show-note only bonus!) here to read the vote breakdown. We explained the "nuclear option" on Senate rules way back in Episode 59; these are the current Senate rules on impeachment (that can be modified at any time with this One Weird Trick). Finally, if you're feeling super optimistic, remember we explained that Mitch McConnell can Mitch McConnell all of this in Episode 272. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
1-10-2019 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 50 seconden
OA318: Quid Pro Quo Burger
Hooooo boy! Today's episode breaks down the tipping point that finally got House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back an impeachment inquiry: the now-disclosed whistleblower complaint that lays out exactly how Donald Trump abused our foreign policy to pressure a foreign leader to aid him in his 2020 re-election campaign. It's every bit as bad as it looks, and we walk you through exactly what it means. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Here's the topline: Acting DNI Maguire changed his story as to why he withheld the whistleblower complaint to a completely bogus claim of executive privilege. We'll tell you why that won't hold up. We'll also answer: What's a TELCON, and do we have reasons to believe that the "transcript" of the President's July 25 conversation with Ukranian President Zelenskyy was "Bill Barr"ed? Are we at PEAK YODEL MOUNTAIN? Did the Republicans really email their stupid talking points to Nancy Pelosi? And if so, how do we spot a hack? (Hint: he -- and they're pretty much all 'he's -- will have an "R" after his name.) What did we learn from Maguire's testimony today, and how incriminating was it? (Very.) What does the complaint say and how bad is it? And finally -- what are the FIVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT Andrew thinks will be brought against this President? After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this time a dreaded real property question that Thomas feels oddly confident about his answer. Do you share his optimism? Let us know! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Remember that the operative statute requiring Maguire to have turned over the whistleblower complaint is 50 U.S.C. § 3033, and particularly subsection (k)(5). Here's the New York Times reporting that Trump mentioned Giuliani way back in his first call to Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019. Extortion is 18 U.S.C. § 355(c)(2); treason is 18 U.S.C. § 2381, and neither are a good fit here. What laws are a good fit? Well, how about (a) illegal solicitation of a campaign contribution, 52 U.S.C. § 30121; (b) bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201 ; (c) obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and much more?? Finally, remember that we first discussed illegal campaign contributions back in Episode 116. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]! Download Link
27-9-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 35 seconden
OA317: North Carolina Rep. Christy Clark
Don't forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! North Carolina has been in the news and on OA a lot lately, so to help give us more context and on-the-ground info, we're fortunate enough to get to speak to NC State Representative Christy Clark! We discuss the awful stunt Republicans pulled in order to override the Governor's Veto, previously discussed in Episode 315. We also talk about gerrymandering, and Rep. Clark gives tells her inspiring story! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
24-9-2019 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 10 seconden
Bonus! Whistleblower Breakdown
Folks, this whistleblower is big news. Andrew Torrez has put in some OT to research the law behind the big news. In this bonus breakdown, we find out: what we know so far, the statute that "protects" the whistleblower and ensures congress should get to hear the complaint, who is currently breaking the law in order to cover for others who are breaking the law, what is currently being done about it, and what can and should be done about it. Listen and share! Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Sept. 10 letter from Schiff to Maquire Sept. 13 response from COUNSEL FOR DNI acting Director Sept. 17 letter back from COUNSEL -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
20-9-2019 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 56 seconden
OA316: Unsealing Mueller's Grand Jury Testimony & Other Yodel Mountain Madness
Today's Rapid Response Friday spends a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, pondering the latest developments in the Trump Administration's efforts to keep the underlying grand jury materials (and redacted portions of the Mueller Report) from being disseminated to Congress. Oh, and we also check in on Trump's taxes, emoluments, that crazy whistleblower case and so much more from this corrupt administration. We begin, however, with few little self-congratulatory remarks and some further information about #Brexit that we covered in Episode 315. Then, it's time to tackle In re Application of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the unsealing of grand jury testimony. Learn how this argument interacts with McKeever v. Barr, which we last discussed in Episode 272. After that, we pause briefly to discuss the latest ruling on emoluments from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the latest apportionment lawsuit that may have been inspired by a previous episode. And we discuss Corey Lewandowski's sideshow, and the four pending lawsuits involving Trump's taxes, and so much more.... That gives us a brief amount of time to talk about the latest whistleblower case and what we do (and don't) know. Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We covered Brexit in Episode 315. Check out the latest Trump argument in In re Application of House Committee on the Judiciary. The operative statutory exception is Fed. Rule Crim. Pro. 6(e), and the case we discussed was McKeever v. Barr. We, of course, first discussed McKeever v. Barr way back in Episode 206 when we debunked the conspiracy theory angle, and we were proven right in Episode 272. The latest emoluments ruling from the 2nd Circuit is here; you can also check out the new apportionment lawsuit as well. Oh, and don't forget to read this great piece on Lewandowski by Elie Mystal. Finally, the two threads you must read on the whistleblower complaint are by Asha Rangappa and our friends at Mueller, She Wrote. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
20-9-2019 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 44 seconden
OA315: North Carolina & Brexit
Don't forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! In this week's Deep Dive Tuesday, we take a look at two crazy stories -- one from last week, and one from... 2016. Yes, it's time for OA finally to tackle the mess that is Brexit now that we have various court rulings around the concept of "prorogation." What the hell is that? Listen and find out! And, as a bonus, we'll also talk about the craziest story out of North Carolina -- and believe us, that title has a lot of contenders! We begin, however, with a brief update on the settlement reached with Purdue Pharma in the Ohio MDL that we discussed in Episode 311. Hint: Andrew was definitely right about this one! Then, it's time for an absolutely bonkers story involving state legislators in North Carolina tricking Democrats into celebrating a 9/11 memorial... so that they could have a stealth session to override a gubernatorial veto. Did that really happen??!? (Yes.) How?!? And what happens next? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for the OA explainer on Brexit just in time for today's UK Supreme Court oral argument. Find out what court said what and how that all interacts! Then, it's time for #T3BE. Can Thomas stop a show-worst six-question losing streak? With a real property question??!? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We discussed a potential Purdue Pharma settlement in Episode 311; you can read media coverage of that reported settlement here. This is Section 22 of the North Carolina Constitution that allowed this crazy gamesmanship regarding the veto. Finally, click here to read the Scottish Court of Session decision regarding Brexit and proroguing. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
17-9-2019 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 31 seconden
OA314: The Supreme Court and Trump's Asylum Rules
Today's episode breaks down a 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court to stay the decision of the District Court enjoining the Trump Administration's new asylum rules from going into effect. What happened and why? Listen and find out! It's bad news -- but to balance that out, we spend a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, where we discuss the ongoing march towards impeachment and the latest in the Michael Flynn saga. We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong(TM) segment about two casual (but wrong) comments Andrew made in previous shows. As it turns out, Devin Nunes isn't the beneficiary of gerrymandering -- we knew that, honest! -- he's... wait, why do people vote for Devin Nunes again? We're not sure. Then it's time for the main segment, which breaks down the tragic significance of the court's recent order on asylum. It's only a single paragraph long, but... it speaks volumes. Find out what's going to happen next with expedited removal proceedings and undocumented immigrants. It's a tough segment, but you need to know. Next, it's time for our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain! Find out why the most conservative Democrat in Congress thinks impeachment is "inevitable!" And while we're there... what's the deal with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and his crackpot lawyer? We'll tell you! After all that, it's time for #T3BE. Can Thomas snap a career-worst six-question losing streak? If so, he'll have to do it on a dreaded real property question involving the sale of land. Keep your fingers crossed! Also, COME TO OUR LA LIVE SHOW!!!! Here is the link!! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We last discussed the asylum rule changes in Episode 301. You can check out the district court's well-reasoned injunction here, and the Supreme Court's one-paragraph decision to stay that order here. And, if you're not depressed enough, read this NBC News article involving Trump's decision to deny temporary protected status to Bahamians displaced by hurricane Dorian. Here's the Washington Post article about impeachment and Rep. Brindisi, and here's the evidence that (a) Brindisi's district is the second-reddest among 2018 Democratic winners and (b) that Brindisi is arguably the most conservative Democrat in Congress. On Flynn: here's Schiff's letter, and here's Flynn's plea deal. And if Flynn keeps this up, he's in danger of losing the government's initial sentencing recommendation. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
13-9-2019 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 52 seconden
OA313: Devin Nunes Is A Crazy Cow Farmer
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the latest bizarre lawsuit filed by perhaps America's most-despised Trump sycophant, California Rep. Devin Nunes. Learn all about Nunes's thrice-disciplined lawyer and the theory so crazy it must be heard (and read) to be believed. We begin, however, with an incredibly insightful listener question regarding the bill of attainder doctrine and whether it would apply to the hypothetical Poke Ted Cruz Act of 2021 discussed during our latest live show. Then, it's time to break down Devin Nunes's lawsuit piece by piece, in which you'll learn all about civil RICO lawsuits ... and why they don't remotely apply to the paranoid conspiracy theory connecting Robert Mueller to Fusion GPS to the Daily Caller to... the Center for Accountability? It's a wild ride, so strap in! After that, it's time for another listener question regarding the guys' views on policy debates vs. "scorched earth" during the Democratic primary. And then, it's time to see if Thomas can turn around his recent losing streak with a #T3BE question involving an offer to sell a pickup truck, acceptance via mail, and revocation by phone. Who wins? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links In the opening segment, we discussed the bill of attainder doctrine explained in U.S. v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946). Oh man, you have to read the Devin Nunes lawsuit for yourself. Check out the new Larry Klayman's AVVO page detailing his prior suspensions. Civil RICO can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. In the last segment, we mention this atrocious hit piece in the Jacobin. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
10-9-2019 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 17 seconden
OA312: Gerrymandering in North Carolina
This week's episode breaks down the 357-page state court gerrymandering decision in North Carolina striking down that state's legislative districts. We explain in depth exactly what happened -- and exactly why cases like there are the future for political gerrymandering claims in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause. We begin, however, with a couple of Andrew Was Wrong segments, including a sad update on Gavin Grimm as well as feedback from the entire state of Idaho! Then, it's time for a deep dive into the recent ruling in North Carolina, which includes an analysis of both the facts -- featuring "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" Dr. Evil stand-in Thomas Hofeller -- and the law. If political gerrymandering is now perfectly okay by the U.S. Supreme Court, what can we do? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a brief Yodel Mountain update regarding Don McGahn, as well as a Jeffrey Epstein update. And then it's time for #T3BE on the formation of contract: when, exactly, does a contract to buy a truck get made? You won't want to miss this one. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We last discussed Gavin Grimm's case in Episode 306. Click here to check out the populations of the various states, including Idaho. This is the North Carolina gerrymandering opinion. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
6-9-2019 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 55 seconden
OA311: Opioids Are A Nuisance!
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent landmark trial ruling in Oklahoma that the opioid epidemic constitutes a "public nuisance" in that state, and that Johnson & Johnson must pay $572 million to abate it. What do all of those crazy legal words mean? Is this a "good" result or a "bad" one? What's next? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with -- at long last! -- the in-depth discussion of the shameful history of the Mann Act in the United States as a way of answering why Jeffrey Epstein wasn't charged with offenses under it. Along the way, you'll learn about the worst guy's weekend ever! Then, it's time for the main segment about the public nuisance trial in Oklahoma that resulted in a landmark first-of-its-kind verdict. Find out what that means for future lawsuits and so much more. After all that, it's time for a quick follow-up on the Sheldon Whitehouse brief and some statistical analysis... as well as a call for more stats geekery from our highly-educated fans! And finally, we end the show with #T3BE 142 involving Not Taking Legal Advice From Your Tenant. Did Thomas finally manage to break the streak? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links On Epstein: you can read his (now-dismissed) SDNY indictment, as well as the news of its dismissal. On the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C § 2421 et seq.; you'll also want to check out the case we discussed, Caminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470 (1917). We first discussed the Oklahoma trial in Episode 292, and you can read the judge's trial verdict here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
3-9-2019 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 49 seconden
Law'd Awful Movies #28: Alex Jones Deposition
Hey folks! We thought we'd release this LAM to everyone, because it was particularly interesting and educational. We hope you enjoy it, and maybe it will inspire some new folks to hop on over to patreon.com/law to get more fun bonus stuff like this!
31-8-2019 • 2 uur, 13 minuten, 43 seconden
OA310: Citizenship and the Military and...
Today's Rapid Response Friday takes a look at the recent Trump Administration memorandum "clarifying" the rules on military citizenship for children born to U.S. employees -- largely, those in the armed forces -- serving overseas. Is it as bad as you've heard? (Yes.) Is it actually worse than that? (Yes.) First, though, we continue to revisit the apportionment question discussed in Episode 307. Have we finally crowdsourced a solution? The answer may surprise you! After that, it's time for a deep dive into the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "clarifying" that servicemembers living overseas don't actually count as "living in the United States." Will this cause Trump-supporting military members to vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020? (No.) Should it? (Yes.) Is it way, way worse than you could possibly imagine? Oh yes. After that, it's time for a very brief Andrew Was Wrong (the best kind!). Then, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which we have... something approaching "Don't Take Legal Advice From A Podcast" Law? You won't want to miss this question involving a disgruntled landlord and a put-upon law student. Can Thomas break his losing streak? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first covered the potential apportionment crisis in Episode 307. You can read the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for yourself. The relevant legal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act are 8 U.S.C. § 1401, 8 U.S.C § 1431, and 8 U.S.C. § 1433. This is the August 15th, 2019 story about how the Trump administration continues to use the "out-of-wedlock" rule against LGBTQ couples. Finally, this is the garbage, racist National Review article on birthright citizenship, and this is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S> 649 (1898). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
30-8-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 53 seconden
OA309: Can Stormy Daniels Bring Down Hope Hicks?
Today's episode is one you've requested for a while now: revisiting perhaps America's greatest legal mind, Stormy Daniels. This time, we'll learn how the Stormy saga has gotten Hope Hicks to (almost certainly) have her lawyers lie to Congress... and we'll figure out what that means for the future. First, though, we take a look at some impressive research on the Roberts Court that was put together by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -- hi, Sen. Whitehouse! We know you're listening! -- and the amicus brief it inspired. You know just how bad this Supreme Court is... but only Sen. Whitehouse has quantified it for you. And yes, that makes it much, much worse. After that, it's time for the main segment, in which we head back to Yodel Mountain to examine Hope Hicks's transparently false statements to Congress. How can we prove they're false? It's all thanks to Stormy Daniels, of course! Andrew wades through hundreds of pages of affidavit testimony in connection with the Michael Cohen search warrants to prove that Hicks's claim that she didn't know anything about the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels definitely does not hold water. Then, it's time for the conclusion to the fabulous Banana Law #T3BE! Did Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You should definitely read the comprehensive Supreme Court report prepared by Sen. Whitehouse for the ACS, and also read the amicus brief he (and others) filed in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. New York case. As everyone knows, we first broke the Stormy Daniels story in Episode 154, "Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius." And she still is! Then, we told you that Hope Hicks is the key to all of this in Episode 259 when we examined the Congressional investigations. We predicted that she will be compelled to testify in Episode 290. We covered the release of the Cohen documents in Episode 298. Finally, click here to read Rep. Nadler's letter to Hope Hicks, and here to read her (non-truthful) reply. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
27-8-2019 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 5 seconden
OA308: Faithless Electors
Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down a just-released decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that has produced a ton of alarming media. Is that alarm warranted? (No.) What did the court actually decide, and how will it affect the 2020 Presidential Election? And what does any of this have to do with Lawrence Lessig?? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a grab-bag of questions arising out of Episode 307 on apportionment and revisit an issue that Andrew predicts will hang over the next Presidency. Are there any "quick fixes" to the problem or are we destined to be hung up in litigation? Then, it's time for our deep dive into Baca v. Colorado, understanding (a) how this case came about, (b) what it says, and (c) what the implications are for the 2020 Presidential election. Is it some crazy ruling in favor of Trump? What's "the saddest Hamilton?" Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a quick update on the emoluments clause litigation, this time examining a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. What's the future for individual lawsuits against the President? (Hint: it's not good.) And then it's time for a brand-new banana law-themed #T3BE! Will this slip-and-fall question be enough to get Thomas back in the win column? Listen, and then play along! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out Laurence Tribe's "Optimist Prime" article in the Raw Story. For more on apportionment, you can read 2 U.S.C. § 2a and catch up on Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992), the controlling Supreme Court precedent. Click here to read the 10th Circuit's decision in Baca, and for an example of unwarranted freakout over the Baca decision, check out this wildly-misleading NBC article. If you love the deep dive, don't forget to refresh your memory by re-reading Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). We last updated you on emoluments in Episode 299 and in this fabulous Patreon-only bonus. You can also check out the latest DC ruling. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
23-8-2019 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 20 seconden
OA307: Apportionment - The Census Fight Is Not Over
Today's episode, sadly, reminds you of an entirely new way that you should be terrified. In a "please, tell me that Donald Trump's lawyers aren't listening to this" episode, Andrew breaks down a 1990s court decision surrounding a 1920s law to talk about the ultimate endgame for Trump and the census. Is it horrible? Yes. Are you better off being prepared? Absolutely. We begin, however, with a quick trip up a rare Tuesday Yodel Mountain by examining the transfer of the House Judiciary Committee's lawsuit seeking injunctive relief against Don McGahn. Was it a "huge victory" for the President that Chief Judge Beryl Howell transferred the case? (No.) Then, it's time for a deep dive into the Presidential powers of apportionment and how Donald Trump can potentially do a court-clogging end-run around the Supreme Court's census decision even if he loses the 2020 election. After that, it's time to check out a new segment from Cybertron -- the official "Optimist Prime" versus "Negatron" segment on impeachment. Who will stand victorious? Hint: he's got the energon axe. Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 139, a dreaded real property question. Did Thomas manage to get it right? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can read Judge Howell's order in the McGahn litigation here. If you want to see a sitting federal judge call a DOJ lawyer's papers "halfhearted," check out this ruling, and turn to footnote 2 on page 6. This is the Census Bureau's non-answer to Congresswoman Pressley, and this is the NPR story confirming that the White House won't commit on apportionment. The transmittal law is 2 U.S.C. § 2. Good news! Here's the latest tally on impeachment. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
20-8-2019 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 54 seconden
OA306: From Gavin Grimm to Jeffrey Epstein
Today's episode combines some very, very good news regarding young trans advocate Gavin Grimm... to some rather less good news regarding a proposed rule at the Department of Labor... to some truly bizarre news and a plea for sanity given the ever-changing circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. We begin with what looks like the close of a saga that began more than five years ago, when a Virginia public school board -- at the instigation of bigots in the larger community -- forced Gavin Grimm into "separate but hardly equal" accomodations in his high school. Today, at least, it looks like Grimm has finally won, as we break down a truly monumental decision from the Eastern District of Columbia. Then, it's time to look at proposed rulemaking from the Department of Labor that would modify one of the most important Executive Orders of all time: EO 11246, in which Lyndon Johnson required government contractors not to discriminate in their hiring practices. What does Trump propose to do to this EO? Listen and find out... and maybe someday you'll worship at the Church of Chick-Fil-A. (Seriously!) After that, it's time to check in with the conspiracy theories that abound in the world of Jeffrey Epstein. Is there really a sinister motive to think that someone had Epstein killed? Will documents continue to come out that will shed light on what really happened? (Yes.) We end, as always, with a brand new #T3BE... and yes, it's another dreaded real property question. If you sell property you don't own, and later come to own it, have you merely foolishly squandered your tomato juice? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Gavin Grimm opinion, and here to read Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. YOU SHOULD READ THE PROPOSED DOL RULE AND COMMENT HERE. You can also read the latest Washington Post story suggesting that Epstein's suicide may have not been. We've uploaded ALL the Epstein docs! You can check out the legal documents: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, and Part 13. Wait, where are Parts 4 and 9? Oh, they're over here! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
16-8-2019 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 20 seconden
OA305: Live From New York!
Please enjoy the audio from our live show at the People's Improv Theater in New York City, New York! In addition to #T3BE, we have a deep dive on gun control and the recent Remington cert petition. Then, we have a lot of fun and we have nearly an hour of Q&A! Enjoy.. and come out and see us next time! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links None! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
13-8-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 11 seconden
OA304: Chelsea Manning & More
Today's pre-LIVE SHOW episode breaks down exactly what happened with the recent news story regarding Chelsea Manning being held in contempt of court. What's going on? Listen and find out! Oh, and we also revisit Katy Perry, discuss how Thomas Was Right! regarding John Cage, and take a brief visit to Yodel Mountain. You won't want to miss it! We begin with a couple of updates to the Katy Perry lawsuit we discussed last episode. First, as it turns out, Thomas was prescient in thinking that someone might have copied John Cage's famous 4'33" composition of silence and been sued over it. Does this mean Andrew Was Wrong? There's only one way to know for sure. But that's not all! We've also got a full discussion of the damages awarded to Flame, which gives you some insight into the profits of the song industry. Then, it's time for the main segment breaking down the recent court order regarding Chelsea Manning. If the grand jury has already issued its indictment of Julian Assange, how can she be kept in contempt? And what does this have to do with (almost) friend of the show G. Zachary Terwilliger? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a brief trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent filing by the Department of Justice in the Trump/Mazars lawsuit. Does this mean Bill Barr is corrupt? Yes, yes it does. And finally, it's time for #T3BE, this time involving a multi-structure contract in which one party simply gives up and goes home 1/3 of the way through. How does that person get paid? Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question winning streak?? Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Billboard article about the 2002 Mike Batt/John Cage settlement, and here to read the Katy Perry jury verdict on damages. And don’t forget that you can refresh your recollection by reading all the Katy Perry pleadings, including (a) the lawsuit; (b) the jury verdict; (c) the proposed jury instructions; and (d) the proposed damages instructions. We first discussed Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange in Episode 269, and you can read all of the pleadings we discuss on the show including (a) the March 6, 2018 initial (1-count) grand jury indictment of Assange; (b) the May 23, 2019 superseding indictment (18 counts); (c) the G. Zachary Terwilliger application for an order compelling Manning to testify; (d) the Court's order requiring Manning to testify; (e) Manning's motion to quash; (f) the Court's denial of Manning's motion to quash and imposition of sanctions; and (g) the recent denial of Manning's motion for reconsideration. (Phew!) Assange has been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 793, which we last discussed way back in Andrew's Favorite Episode, #13, "Hillary Clinton's Damned Emails," which was so jammed-packed with information it had its own separate blog post! We discussed the Trump-Mazars lawsuit in detail in Episode 281, and you can read the DOJ's amicus brief embedded here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
9-8-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 58 seconden
OA303: Katy Perry & Facebook
Today's episode checks in on the record-setting $5 billion settlement that Facebook reached with the Federal Trade Commission for, among other things, violating a prior consent order by enabling developers like Cambridge Analytica to access your data without your permission. Is this a good deal for American consumers? It's complicated. Oh, and you also get more music law with Katy Perry, and so much more! We begin with an update on the Senate's last-ditch push to nominate more than a dozen new Trump nominees for lifetime appointments on the federal bench. And yes, despite widespread opposition, despite minimal credentials in many cases, and despite all of them having disqualifying right-wing ideologies... all were confirmed before the Senate decided to take a break. (Sorry for the bad news.) Then, it's time for the deep dive into the Facebook-FTC settlement, which does indeed impose the single largest penalty ever for a consumer protection violation. Learn why the Democratic minority at the FTC thought it wasn't enough, and along the way you'll learn a lot about the FTC. After that, it's time to revisit music law, this time with a jury verdict that Katy Perry violated the copyright of Christian rapper Flame. Andrew gives you the law, and Thomas gives you the music -- you won't want to miss this segment! Then -- as if that wasn't enough -- it's time for the answer to a brand-new #T3BE involving beer, the Constitution, and the notions of justiciability and ripeness. It's not quite as good as having a beer, but it's still a good segment! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget that there are just 2 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Click here to read the FTC-Facebook settlement; click here for the Slaughter dissent; and here for the Chopra dissent. And then don't forget all the Katy Perry pleadings, including (a) the lawsuit; (b) the jury verdict; (c) the proposed jury instructions; and (d) the proposed damages instructions. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
6-8-2019 • 1 uur, 33 minuten, 2 seconden
Introducing Sean Carroll's Mindscape
Each week, Sean Carroll hosts conversations with some of the most interesting thinkers in the world. From neuroscientists and engineers to authors and television producers, Sean and his guests talk about the biggest ideas in science, philosophy, culture and more. Start listening now at: http://wondery.fm/MindscapeAB
5-8-2019 • 9 minuten, 7 seconden
OA302: #DemocracyRIP
Today's episode is all about democracy -- from the Russian efforts to de-legitimize a Clinton victory in 2016 with the #DemocracyRIP hashtag and media storm to those very same tactics being employed right now in 2019. Is a new California law requiring a presidential candidate to disclose his or her tax returns the answer? Listen and find out! We begin with the release of the (Republican) Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Vol. I, which details the extent of the Russian government's activities to infiltrate U.S. elections in 2016, including de-legitimatizing an expected Hillary Clinton victory with social media storming (and the #DemocracyRIP hashtag). It's truly terrifying. And then we move from that report to something that looks to be in exactly the same vein after the second night of the Democratic primary debate. Coincidence or conspiracy? You decide! After that, it's time for a deep dive into California Bill SB27 which requires Presidential (and gubernatorial) candidates to disclose their tax returns. Find out what the media has mis-reported, what this bill actually does, why Andrew Was Wrong, and where the future is headed for mandatory disclosure requirements. Then, we tackle another potential conspiracy theory -- this time, that the California State Bar secretly leaked bar exam questions to certain elite law schools. Is it true? (Not really.) After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE on regulations regarding pasteurized beer. Will Thomas break his losing streak? Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget that there are just 3 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Here's a link to the (heavily redacted) Vol. I of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in U.S. elections. This is the actual evidence related to #KamalaHarrisDestroyed, including (a) the Hill article and (b) the February 2nd, 2019 NBC News story. Click here to read California SB27. This is the ABA Journal article on the California bar, and this is the letter sent out to CA law school deans. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
2-8-2019 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 23 seconden
OA301: The Good News Show!
Today's episode focuses on a number of actual good developments in the news! From the second half of the Mueller testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, to a court's issuance of an injunction blocking Trump's illegal efforts to change the rules on asylum, it's a (rare) week of good news! Oh -- and there's a brand new intro for your enjoyment as well! We begin with an update on Mueller's second round of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, and answer some questions about whether Rep. Nadler can launch "an impeachment inquiry" without Nancy Pelosi's approval. Then, it's time for some good news out of the courts, including a sweeping injunction handed down in Arkansas with respect to three laws that restrict and/or prohibit abortion, including Act 493, which purported to ban all abortions after 18 weeks. This is exactly what we predicted would happen at the district court level -- and you can learn why this particular (159-page!) decision is particularly useful going forward. But the good news doesn't stop there! We also break down the Northern District of California's injunction with respect to the joint DOJ/DHS rule regarding asylum that was rammed through without the appropriate notice-and-comment period last week. Then, it's time for a fun segment regarding disciplinary proceedings against everyone's favorite crazy person, Larry Klayman! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget that there are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Click here for Nadler's 2017 impeachment inquiry. This is the must-read Dana Leigh Marks article in the Washington Post that we discuss on this show. Finally, click here to read the DC panel's recommendations against crazy person Larry Klayman. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
30-7-2019 • 1 uur, 28 minuten, 37 seconden
OA300: Mueller Testifies!
It's Mueller Time! Today's episode drops early to give you our instant reaction to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. (This only covers the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, not the subsequent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.) There are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they're gone! We break down everything that transpired -- the high points, the low points, and whether anything Moved The Noodle(TM). Specifically, we point out the factual and legal background underlying Mueller's testimony, the 24 OLC memorandum that is the subject of Mueller's declination decision, and the standards for indicting a person under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). Plus, you'll learn the totally misleading takes that right-wing sources are sure to run with, and we'll equip you with everything you need to rebut those. After a lengthy breakdown of the day's events, we head to #T3BE, which involves a breach-of-contract claim against a bar exam tutor and a rather disappointed new lawyer. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links Don't forget that there are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they're gone! Click here to read the Mueller Report. Click here to read the OLC opinion. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
24-7-2019 • 1 uur, 33 minuten, 50 seconden
OA299: Executive v. Judiciary (Worcester v. Georgia)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there's a lesson to be drawn to today's Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census. We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including "Joey Salads" and his nonsense "complaint" against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Then, it's time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn't an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history. In the "C" segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free. After all that, it's time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly... only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won't want to miss the full discussion. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links We last discussed the Emoluments Clauses litigation in Episode 297. and for more, check out our Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Here's the full text of the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. We last discussed Bridgegate in Episode 232, and you can click here to read Prof. Eliason's latest blog on the topic. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]! Download Link
23-7-2019 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 32 seconden
OA298: Hope Hicks & Weaponized Ticks
Today's episode tackles the recently-released trove of unredacted documents in the Southern District of New York in Michael Cohen's case and explains why Hope Hicks might have been ensnared by America's greatest legal mind, Stormy Daniels. Oh, and have you heard that the Congress ordered the DOJ to investigate... whether the military weaponized ticks and if so, whether those ticks were released against Americans? It's a weird story that can't possibly be true... can it? We begin, however, with the resolution to last episode's #T3BE (formerly #TTTBE) controversy regarding the definition and conditions required for assault. Learn the results of whether "hissing" constitutes a physical threat... and whether that even matters! Then, it's time for long trip up Yodel Mountain. We begin by discussing the... conclusion? of the citizenship question and Andrew lets you know what's still to come in those cases. After that, it's time to discuss the House's resolution of criminal contempt against Bill Barr and Wilbur Ross, and what that likely means going forward. And while we're still on Yodel Mountain... hey, how about those Michael Cohen docs? Now that the other cases have been concluded, the judge ordered the Cohen search warrants to be released in (mostly) unredacted form, and you won't believe what they show. After all that, it's time for the segment you've all been waiting for: WEAPONIZED TICKS. This is a segment so powerful, you won't believe it (and we won't spoil it here in the show notes)! And then it's time for a new #T3BE involving the rules of evidence and an oral contract. Think you have what it takes to hang with Thomas? Play along online by sharing out this episode, using our new hashtag, #T3BE, and we will reward one winner with Never Ending Fame & Fortune (TM). Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Left at the Valley podcast discussing abortion, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links It's not too late! Click here to get tickets for the Opening Arguments LIVE SHOW, live in New York City on August 10th. If you want to read the Cohen docs yourself, they're linked here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
19-7-2019 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 4 seconden
OA297: Twitter, Emoluments & Labor Unions
Today's episode features a grab-bag of stories that have been making the rounds, including the recent ruling out of the Second Circuit regarding Donald Trump's use of Twitter, a setback for our buddy Brian Frosh's efforts to enforce the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and an update on the real-word consequences of the Janus v. AFSCME decision we decry so much around here. We begin with the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump, which established that a government official may convert a social media platform such as Twitter into a "limited use public forum," from which he may not block users on the basis of the political content of their speech -- i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Almost no one understands this decision; we'll make sure you're one of the lucky ones who do! Then, it's time for a breakdown of the 4th Circuit's ruling in In re Trump, which directs the lower court to dismiss the lawsuit (and pending discovery) against Trump in the lawsuit brought by Maryland and D.C. alleging violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Find out what this case is all about, whether the outcome is reasonable, and what's next. After that, it's time for a quick look at the real-world implications of the Janus v. AFSCME decision allowing public-sector union employees to withhold a portion of their dues otherwise allocated for administrative duties under... some crazy right-wing theory that something something something, because Sam Alito knows diminishing the power of unions will hurt Democrats. But what else did that decision do? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for the most controversial #TTTBE yet, in which we discover the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam (regarding larceny and robbery) ... or do we? You won't want to miss this one! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Left at the Valley podcast discussing abortion, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump (the Twitter case), and here to check out the Fourth Circuit's ruling in In Re Trump (the Emoluments case). We first covered the emoluments case way back in Episode 78, and we interviewed Seth Barrett Tillman for his unique take in Episode 35 and Episode 36. We learned that bad stuff was coming in the emoluments litigation in Episode 239 when the 4th Circuit issued a stay of all discovery; you can read that stay order here. Finally, click here to read the LA Progressive article on Mark Janus and his conservative activism. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
16-7-2019 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 24 seconden
OA296: Understanding the Jeffrey Epstein Indictment
Today's episode gives you the legal background you need to understand all of the different legal fronts in the various pending proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations of underage sex trafficking, including the recent criminal indictment in the Southern District of New York, currently pending civil defamation lawsuits against Epstein associates (including Alan Dershowitz), and the effort to reverse the non-prosecution agreement in Florida. We begin, however, with a preview of some HUGE NEWS -- our upcoming live show in New York City the weekend of August 9, 2019! Clear your calendars now and get ready to come see us live and in person! Then, it's time to unpack all of the various legal proceedings surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. (For more of a factual analysis of the Florida non-prosecution agreement, check out Episode 259.) You'll learn about the various defamation lawsuits, their status, and what's next. And then you'll also learn where we stand with respect an effort that's now 11 years old by Epstein's victims to revoke the non-prosecution agreement. And after all that, we also break down exactly how to parse the deluge of news that's soon to come out in all of these cases. After that, it's time to check back in on the Trump administration's efforts to defy the Supreme Court and still insert a citizenship question on the census. Learn what Andrew predicts will happen at Trump's press conference, why the New York court denied certain DOJ lawyers leave to withdraw, what's next in both the Maryland and New York cases and more! Of course, no episode would be complete without #TTTBE! This week's Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is question #134 about criminal law. When a jewelry thief poses as the mayor's rich and powerful son, what kinds of crimes could he be charged with? You'll just have to listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 100 of the Skepticrat; check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open We last discussed the Epstein case in Episode 259. Various court documents: here’s the (a) Second Circuit’s ruling to unseal documents in Giuffre v. Maxwell; (b) the Complaint in Giuffre v. Dershowitz and (c) the 2007 Epstein non-prosecution agreement in Florida. This is the text of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Judge Marra ordered that it did violate the CVRA, but that didn’t necessarily mean that the plea deal would be torn up. Judge Marra (SDFla.)’s ruling can be found here. Here’s the Snopes article about face-swapping Clinton’s face over Trump’s. Finally, here are the Maryland local rules. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
12-7-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 16 seconden
OA295: A Bladensburg Post-Mortem With Monica Miller
Today's episode welcomes Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association, back to the show! Miller, as you know, was the lead counsel and presented the AHA's argument before the Supreme Court in the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n case involving the 40-foot Latin cross on public property in Bladensburg, Maryland. Andrew and Monica spend the entire show doing a deep dive into the decision, trying to figure out issues like (1) is the Lemon v. Kurtzman test really dead?; (2) how can we make sense of the court's admonition to "respect the beliefs" of those who oppose taking down the cross?; (3) how can local activists proceed in light of this decision, and much, much more! After a wide-ranging interview, it's time for the answer to what Andrew has dubbed the Worst, Stupidest Bar Exam question -- this one involving the "equitable conversion" doctrine in the sale of land. Did Thomas somehow manage to get a crazy, stupid, awful real property question correct? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 100 of the Skepticrat; check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open We broke down the Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256, and interviewed Monica Miller after oral arguments in Episode 274; go check them both out! Finally, we broke down the details of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n decision in Episode 290. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
9-7-2019 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 56 seconden
OA294: How To Fix The Supreme Court!
Today's episode reveals Andrew's plan for how to fix the Supreme Court! Oh, and while you're here, we'd love it if you would vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue ">> Nominations Now Open We begin with a detailed breakdown of the developments in the multiple census cases in light of the Supreme Court's ruling last week in Department of Commerce v. New York, which we last discussed in Episode 292. Find out how a parallel case in Maryland may be the key to finally keeping the citizenship question off of the 2020 census! Then, it's time for a deep dive. We begin with Bernie Sanders's answer at the first Democratic Debate, pivot to a discussion of Daniel Epps's "Supreme Court Lottery" plan, and finally end with the option Andrew prefers. How to fix the Supreme Court? Is it Constitutional Hardball? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a quick Yodel Mountain update on the status of the Democratic effort to get Trump's tax returns. Good news, everyone! And then, as if that wasn't enough, it's time for the most pointless Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question... ever! It's #133, it's Real Property, and it's terrible. And if you would like to participate in this self-inflicted torture, just share out this episode on social media, include your answer and the hashtag #TTTBE, and we will shower one lucky winner with never-ending fame and fortune(*)! (*) - subject to the terms and conditions as set forth orally during this show. Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue ">> Nominations Now Open We last discussed the census question and the Supreme Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. New York in Episode 292. You'll want to read the brief transcript of the telephonic hearing held in front of Judge Hazel in the Maryland case. And you can click here if you want to monitor the Supreme Court's docket to look for the Government's potential motion. This is the text of Rule 62.1, which was certainly new to Andrew. This is a transcript of the second night of the Democratic debate, which contained Bernie Sanders's Supreme Court answer. You can click here to read Epps & Sitamaran's law review article, "The Supreme Court Lottery," for yourself, and you can fact-check Andrew's points about the composition of the federal bench here. Finally, don't forget to check out jurisdiction-stripping in Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868) and the original law review article written by Charles E. Rice ("Congress and the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction"). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
5-7-2019 • 1 uur, 32 minuten, 4 seconden
OA293: My Deference & Auer Deference (Kisor v. Wilkie)
Today's episode revisits a narrow area of administrative law we last discussed in Episode 266, namely, Auer deference. Andrew made a bold prediction in that episode, and find out where he was wrong -- and where he was right now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie. We also discuss the recent unsealing of court records thanks to a CNN reporter and we witness the return of listener favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" with a fabulous question about drinking and driving. Buckle up! We begin, however, with a look at a recent request made by CNN's Katelyn Polantz regarding certain court proceedings and records relating to the Mueller Investigation. Does this mean that "BILL BARR KILLED 7 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS?" (No.) But it is significant, and you won't want to miss why. Then, it's time for a deep-dive explainer that starts with a reminder on the principles of agency deference. Don't remember the exact difference between Chevron deference and Auer deference? We've got you covered -- including, in particular, how the latter came under attack in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case involving a retired servicemember challenging the internal agency regulations governing disability pay. Should the courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, or should it be wildly activist and defer to Neil Gorsuch's interpretation of those rules? Kisor gives us a slightly different answer than you might expect, all while angling us towards the day soon to come in which the Supreme Court greatly expands the power of the judicial branch. After that, it's time for Are You A Cop? featuring some truly terrible advice for how to beat a DUI arrest. (Please do not do this.) We talk about standards of evidence while debunking the notion that you should... drink more when you're pulled over? (It's a weird question.) As if that wasn't enough, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #132 about an escaped, de-fanged, venomous snake. Who's responsible? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the Raw Story article we criticize during the "A" segment, and to verify what we've said is correct, you can read (a) Polantz's request; (b) the Court's order; (c) Exhibit A (Search Warrants); (d) Exhibit B (Wiretapping); and (e) Exhibit C (Pen Register/Trap & Trace). Phew! We previewed Kisor v. Wilkie (read decision) in Episode 266. And, in breaking down Justice Roberts's holding in Kisor, we also expose shoddy journalism like this Daily Beast article. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
2-7-2019 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 59 seconden
OA292: The End of Democracy
Today's rapid response episode breaks down the latest decisions from the Roberts court, including the ostensible "win" in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case), and the crushing loss in Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering cases). Oh, and along the way we'll also discuss the opioid crisis and the news that Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. It's going to be a long and wild ride, so strap in! We begin by taking a quick trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the significance and substance of the Congressional subpoena issued to Robert Mueller. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to break down the theory and developments in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816, the case that's at the forefront of the efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in causing the opioid crisis in this country. Find out what a "public nuisance" is, whether manufacturing and selling opioids is one, why this case is important, and much, much more! After all that, it's time for the main event: breaking down the Supreme Court's decisions in Ross and Rucho. Find out why Andrew thinks that John Roberts wrote the Ross opinion going the other way until the evidence broke regarding Thomas Hofeller, and how that means the entirety of the new game is: Shame Justice Roberts. (Oh, and also you'll learn along the way that our democracy is screwed.) After all that, it's time for an all-new, all-awesome Thomas Takes The Bar Exam about strict liability and de-fanged venomous snakes. What madness transpires? Listen and find out, and then play along with #TTTBE on social media! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can read the Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case) as well as Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering case). Click here to read the Complaint in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816. Finally, you can check out the Los Angeles Times article on Purdue Pharma we referenced on the show as well as click here for more information on the MDL litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
Today's SUPER SPECIAL BONUS EPISODE tackles a bunch of issues that came up during the week that we didn't want to get buried on the whiteboard, including the Flores settlement, a deep dive into non-compete clauses, and a really good Andrew Was Right & Wrong segment about the Hatch Act. It's everything you love about Opening Arguments, only more so! We begin with an examination of the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit regarding ICE detainment centers and whether those comply with the conditions mandated by the Flores settlement that require "safe and sanitary" conditions for minors separated from their families at the border. After that, it's time for a deep dive into a really good listener question from Erin regarding covenants not to compete. Learn all about the "Legitimate Business Interest" (LBI) test and how to gauge whether a noncompete clause is (likely) enforceable, plus learn about the recent economic and political trends surrounding noncompetes that may surprise you. Then, it's time for a very insightful set of comments from a listener regarding the Hatch Act; it's an Andrew Was Right/Andrew Was Wrong compliment sandwich, but we all wind up better for it! No #TTTBE this episode since it's a special bonus. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Flores settlement and border policy back in Episode 184. For a recent report on the oral argument, check out this Courthouse News article referenced on the show. We last discussed non-compete clauses in Episode 75. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
26-6-2019 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 38 seconden
OA290: Executive Privilege, Hope Hicks & Don McGahn
Today's episode takes a deep dive into executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are -- spoiler: some aren't terrible! -- and what's next for the Congressional Democrats. First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n decision from last week; that's the Bladensburg Cross case that we've discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.) Then, it's time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration's claims regarding executive privilege "over the last five decades." As you've come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right... and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show. Then, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant's "reputation for honesty." If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence -- and really, who doesn't? -- you'll love this segment. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Bladensburg Cross case in Episode 256 with Sarah Henry of the AHA, and then got first-hand testimony about the oral argument in Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Click here to read the full Supreme Court opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n. If you missed our coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop, check out Episode 180. We first broke down the importance of Hope Hicks to the Congressional investigations in Episode 259; and you can click here to read the letter and subpoena she received from Rep. Nadler. NPR confirmed that Hicks's testimony was carefully managed by White House lawyers (and was therefore worthless). Click here to read Rehnquist's 1971 memorandum on executive privilege, and click here to read how President Clinton's OLC cited that memo 25 years later. Finally, this is Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008), the district court opinion Andrew breaks down on the show. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
25-6-2019 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 47 seconden
OA289: #OpposeJustinWalker
Today's episode -- #OpposeJustinWalker -- tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump's latest nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench (and Andrew's former debate opponent) Justin Walker. You already know he's a lifelong member of the Federalist Society. Why is it specifically worth opposing him? Listen and find out! First, though, the guys break down the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling in U.S. v. Gamble, affirming the "dual sovereignty" doctrine and finally putting the last nail in the coffin of a crazy lefty conspiracy theory we debunked way back in Episode 215. And, as a bonus (?), we find out why Clarence Thomas's concurrence is "the most horrifying thing in print in the past 50 years." Seriously! After that breakdown, it's time to analyze the background and writings of Justin Walker. We learn that he has virtually no litigation experience and that he's a right-wing ideologue; you probably expected that. But you'll also learn that his two major contributions to academic jurisprudence are (1) arguing that transparency in government is a bad, possibly unconstitutional thing; and (2) arguing that the FBI Director has a moral obligation to be the President's lackey. We are not making any of this up. Then, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam and a question on the propriety of a introducing a particular fact into evidence as the predicate for a cross-examination question. Is it hearsay? Is it impeachment? Is it just hunky-dory? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. We discussed the American Legion v. AHA Bladensburg cross case in OA Episodes 256 (with Sarah Henry of the AHA) and Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Monica IS coming back on the show! 2. Click here to read Gamble v. U.S. which we first discussed in OA 215. 3. Andrew debated Justin Walker in Episode 224. 4. This is his announcement. 5. You can read Walker’s CV here. 6. Of Justin Walker’s law review articles, click here to read “Chilled Chambers" and here to read “FBI Independence as a Threat to Civil Liberties: An Analogy to Civilian Control of the Military”. 7. By the way, this is the link to the FBI investigating Deutsche Bank in connection with Jared Kushner. 8. Finally, this is Walker’s National Review article. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
21-6-2019 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 9 seconden
OA288: More Led Zeppelin! (& Legal Ethics with Amy Chua)
Today's episode explains exactly what happened with the story you probably saw about how Led Zeppelin "got a new hearing" in their lawsuit with the estate of Randy California. What's going on? Listen and find out! We also break down the latest ethical wrangling over Yale law professor Amy Chua and Brett Kavanaugh. Is it as bad as everyone says? We begin with the tale of "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua, the Yale law professor who wrote a stirring defense of Brett Kavanaugh as a "mentor to women" after Kavanaugh had offered Chua's daughter a plum clerkship. Did that pot get sweetened when Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court? (Hint: yes.) We break down all of the ethics & more in this segment. Then, it's time to revisit the lawsuit brought by the estate of Randy California against Led Zeppelin alleging that Led Zep stole the iconic riff for "Stairway to Heaven" from California's band, Spirit. If you haven't listened to Episode 236, go give that a listen right now, and then come back to find out what's new. Then, it's time for another Andrew Was Wrong segment -- this time, involving the actual penalty for refusing to answer or giving false answers on the Census. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #130 about the constitutional propriety of collecting sales tax from a private individual who will then turn around and sell the objects to the state. Did Thomas get it right? There's only one way to know for sure! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read Chua's original Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Kavanaugh Is A Mentor to Women." After that broke, Elie Mystal criticized Chua in an Above the Law article, to which Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld tweeted that she "[w]on't be applying to SCOTUS." Mystal also teamed up with The Guardian to unearth more revelations regarding Chua, Kavanaugh, and how his clerks always "look like models." Of course, it was Mystal who broke the news that Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld was chosen as a Kavanaugh SCOTUS clerk. We covered Zeppelin in Episode 236. The false answers statute is 13 U.S.C. § 221. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
18-6-2019 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 38 seconden
OA287: Down the Hatch (Act)?
Today's Rapid Response Friday covers all of the breaking developments this week, including a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the latest news out of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Special Counsel's latest request that Donald Trump should fire Kellyanne Conway for "flagrant" serial violations of the Hatch Act. What does all that mean? Listen and find out! We begin by revisiting the state of Wisconsin, where Republicans in gerrymandered-safe seats in the state legislature stripped power away from the incoming Democratic Governor and Attorney General. A trial court issued an injunction preventing that law from going into effect, and just two days ago, the state Supreme Court finally ruled on that injunction. How did that go? (You know the drill.) Then, we move into the main segment, in which we discuss all of the developments related to the census question we last discussed in Episode 286. Learn about one respondent's petition for limited remand, the White House's assertion of executive privilege, and then what's next from the Democratic House. After all that, it's time to climb Yodel Mountain. Learn exactly who Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn hired once he fired Covington & Burlington Coat Factory, and what that (probably) means. And then, it's time to learn allllll about the Hatch Act, and why a loyal Trump supporter thinks it means it's time to fire Kellyanne Conway. Then, it's time for Thomas Takes the Bar Exam. This time, Thomas tackles a tricky question about a government agency that hires a private collector to purchase antiques. Can the state charge sales tax? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. We last discussed the census in Episode 286. 2. Click here to read the NYIC petition for limited remand. 3. This is HR 430, which is the full House vote to allow the Judiciary Committee to sue to enforce the McGahn and Barr subpoenas. 4. And here is the roll call vote. 5. The Hatch Act is 5 U.S.C. § 7323. 6. The Hatch Act was upheld in United States Civil Service Comm’n et al. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, et al., 413 U.S. 548 (1973). 7. Finally, click here to read the OSC Conway letter. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
14-6-2019 • 1 uur, 27 minuten, 44 seconden
OA286: The Census and Disenfranchisement
Today's episode takes a deep dive into recent developments following the death of Republican operative Thomas Hofeller -- the architect of the REDMAP -- that may impact the census question case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Department of Commerce v. New York. First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about the 2006 midterm elections and the Pension Protection Act. That was, in fact, a Democratic wave year -- but the PPA was passed in August, nearly five months before that new Democratic congress was seated. Oops. Then it's time to delve into the strange files of Thomas Hofeller, the architect of REDMAP -- you know, the gerrymandering strategy and software that turned Republican minorities into majorities in states like Wisconsin and tiny Republican majorities into one-sided dominance in states like North Carolina. Want to know his plan for helping "Non-Hispanic Whites?" Of course you do! We break down exactly how this development may affect Dep't of Commerce v. New York, which has already been briefed and argued before the Supreme Court, and the interesting strategy that the respondents used to make SCOTUS aware of what Hofeller was up to. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (and the Entire Puzzle in a Thunderstorm Crew) Takes the Bar Exam #129 involving comparative negligence, joint and several liability, and intra-family liability in connection with a car accident. Did you get it right? Remember you can play along every Friday by sharing our show on social media using the hashtag #TTTBE. Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 98 of the Skepticrat breaking down everyone's second-favorite Democratic 2020 Presidential contenders; you won't want to miss it! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first covered the citizenship question on Episode 232 You can access the briefs filed in Department of Commerce v. New York: Here This is the letter filed by respondents and copied to the Supreme Court setting forth the new evidence relating to Hofeller. And, in the interests of balance, here's the response filed by the government. And finally, here's the ruling and scheduling order from Judge Furman in the District Court case (No. 18-2921) setting forth the time to brief and seek discovery regarding potential sanctions on the government witnesses. -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
11-6-2019 • 55 minuten, 36 seconden
OA285: Tulsi Gabbard & Michael Flynn
Today's instant-breaking episode takes a look at the significance of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's decision to fire his lawyers, Andrew's buddies over at Covington & Burling. Oh, and we also take a semi-deep-dive into President Trump's decision to impose tariffs on "all goods" imported from Mexico. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a slight preview of next week's show, which will break down the impending tariffs on goods imported from Mexico. How is this like (or unlike) Trump's decision to impose steel tariffs on China? You'll have to listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment in which we learn that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has fired his lawyers at Covington & Burling? What does that mean? Only time will tell. For the "C" segment, we break down the upcoming DNC debate, who's qualified, and what legal remedies some of the "loser" candidates might have. After all that, it's time for #TTTBE involving torts, contributory negligence, and joint and several liability. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Trump's tariffs on China in episode 162 Trump's statement on Mexican tariffs is here The prior authority relied upon by Trump is the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 Click here to read a CNBC piece on the likelihood of a trade war. You can read Vol I. and Vol. II of the Mueller in searchable PDF. Here's the evidence C&B was fired. Here are the DNC rules and you can check out "Bernie Sanders's" failed lawsuit here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
7-6-2019 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 48 seconden
OA284: Drain the Swamp, Starring Gordon Hartogensis
Today's episode is a tragedy in three acts, bringing together three seemingly-unrelated stories: (1) understanding the looming crisis at the Pension Benefits ordonuarantee Corporation; (2) figuring out who Gordon Hartogensis is and why he's about to gain control over potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in assets; and finally, (3) putting together all the pieces to see how President Trump has acted to protect his crony, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, from potential criminal and civil liability in connection with his management of Sears. Strap in; it's going to be a bumpy ride! We begin in Act I, in which the guys break down the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), its creation, the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the developments over the last 45 years that have pushed the PBGC to the brink of collapse. Act II, then, takes over with the recently-appointed International Man of Mystery, Gordon Hartogensis, to lead the PBGC. Who is this guy, and what has he done to inspire confidence that he can right the ship? Listen and find out! Act III weaves these stories together with the ongoing civil lawsuit by Sears against Steven Mnuchin and his buddy Eddie Lampert, who are alleged to have looted Sears's assets, driving it into bankruptcy. You'll never guess who bought those assets in bankruptcy... or, perhaps you'll instantly guess who did. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy fast-food heist involving an imaginary sniper and the drive-thru lane. Did you get it right?? Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. You can also read the text and a breakdown of the key provisions of the PPA, which passed the Senate 93-5. For a sad laugh, check out the PBGC's own scant "Who the hell is Gordon Hartogensis?" page. The first person to break this story was Politico's Ian Kullgren, who wrote this article. We first covered the Sears/Lampert/Mnuchin story back in Episode 273, and you can read the Warren/Ocasio-Cortez letter here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
4-6-2019 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 41 seconden
OA283: Mueller Speaks! (& Clarence Thomas Pens a Nonsensical Concurrence)
Today's episode breaks down the statement made this week by Robert Mueller in connection with his report and investigation. Is it a good sign? Is it a bad sign? Is it both? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a bit of housekeeping, including a recommendation that you check out Episode 194 of Serious Inquiries Only (featuring Eli Bosnick!) for the official OA answer to all things milkshaking. We also preview a bit of next week's show, which involves revisiting Eddie Lampert, Steve Mnuchin, and the alleged looting of Sears. Is it worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) Next, we check in on four Supreme Court orders that relate to gerrymandering. Is that worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) After all that, we're not even halfway done! Our main segment breaks down the Supreme Court's brief, two-page per curiam order in Box v. Planned Parenthood... and the sprawling, nonsensical 20-page concurrence written by Clarence Thomas that literally repeats David Barton-level falsehoods. You'll be angry, but you won't want to miss it. Then, it's time to Yodel! We carefully break down Robert Mueller's statement regarding his investigation and what it means for the future. In so doing, we also analyze Mueller's claims regarding the now-infamous 2000 OLC memo as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. After all that, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy criminal effort to steal money from a fast-food drive-through by pretending to have a sniper... look, you'll just have to listen and play along, okay?!? Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For the correct take on milkshaking, check out Serious Inquiries Only Episode 194 with Eli Bosnick. We first covered the alleged looting of Sears by Eddie Lampert and Steve Mnuchin in Episode 273 and that was picked up by our friends Elizabeth Warren and AOC. These are the four orders the Supreme Court granted in gerrymandering cases: A. HOUSEHOLDER, LARRY, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL. B. CHABOT, STEVE, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL C. MICHIGAN SENATE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. D. CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. Click here to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood Click here for the peer-reviewed research showing that Sanger was not a eugenicist; and here for the article showing she wasn’t a racist. This is a transcript of Robert Mueller’s testimony and this is the 2000 OLC Memo. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!
31-5-2019 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 37 seconden
OA282: OREO (& The Real HUD Scandal)
Lost in the (justifiable) concern over Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson's apparent lack of understanding of REOs, OREO, and just about anything pertinent to his job is a recently-proposed HUD rule that would deliberately reverse an Obama-era regulation requiring nondiscrimination in the provision of services to the homeless based on gender identity. Is it as bad as you think? (Yes.) First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong and a bit more discussion on abortion, including the difference between Plan B and the oral abortifacient RU-486, and the difference between a zygote and a blastocyst. After that, it's time for our deep dive into Secretary Carson's laughable testimony... and the real issue hiding beneath the surface, which involves crafting a religious exception to the Equality Rule of 2016. Then, it's time to debut Optimist Prime(TM) vs. Negatron(TM) on impeachment. Find out why Andrew thinks the tide is turning and Thomas... doesn't. Where do you wind up? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for the answer to an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127 -- a dreaded real property question about a man who tries to convey his property to an overseas nephew before dying. Can Thomas get it right?? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. and analyzed Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 in Episode 280. You can read HUD proposed rule FR-6152 (currently RIN 2506-AC53) for yourself.
28-5-2019 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 49 seconden
OA281: Follow the Money! (Analyzing Judge Mehta's Order)
Today's episode breaks down Judge Mehta's recent order in the Trump v. Mazars litigation, which is parallel to the Deutsche Bank lawsuit we discussed on last week's show. Why is this ruling significant, how does it accelerate the House's efforts to uncover crucial financial documents, and what does this mean for the future of the Trump Presidency? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a look at some late-breaking news from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have requested information from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin related to his tenure at Sears (that we discussed in Episode 273) and whether that conduct continued during his time working for the Trump administration. Then, it's time for the main segment, in which we discuss Judge Mehta's order, what it means for the future of the Trump investigations (and for future presidential administrations!), as well as deal with skeptical questions about the potential timeframe. Learn how the Congressional Democrats maneuvered to get this case fast-tracked so as to avoid endless delays -- and listen to Andrew's possibly-surprising prediction about what he thinks the Supreme Court won't do to protect Trump! After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127... and yes, it's another dreaded real property question. Worse, it's a hard one -- in which the question gives you the answer but asks for the best reason why. Find out what happens when someone conveys property and dies while the gift recipient is overseas serving in the military. And if you'd like to play along with #TTTBE, just share out this episode on social media for a chance to be next week's winner! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the most recent episode of Pod Therapy, discussing the "Goldwater Rule," and Thomas was a guest on Episode 196 of God Awful Movies, "Alien Intrusion: Unmasking a Deception." If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. This is the link to the Warren/AOC letter to Mnuchin 2. We most recently discussed the Congressional subpoenas into Trump's finances in Episode 279. 3. Text of Judge Mehta's order in the Mazars case. 4. This is the New York Times story about the Deutsche Bank whistleblower; and for an in-depth discussion of SARs reports, check out Carla McCadden in Episode 174. 5. This is the report that some lenders have already provided documents to the House, and we discussed the Wells Fargo penalties in Episode 146 and 169. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected] Download Link
24-5-2019 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 23 seconden
OA280: Abortion Rights Under Assault
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent abortion bans passed in Georgia and Alabama, breaking down exactly what these laws say (and don't say!) to help you sort through the panic from the actual news. It's not always a pleasant trip, but it's a journey worth taking to figure out exactly what's at stake. We begin, however, with a listener question about abortion -- and specifically, about whether the federal government can preemptively prevent the states from doing the kinds of things we talked about back in Episode 276. Find out why Andrew thinks the conservative Supreme Court isn't likely to uphold the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting states from recognizing abortion rights. After that, it's time for a deep dive in to the very confusing Georgia statute , HB 481. Exactly what does this bill do (and not do), and how scared should you be? Listen and find out. And if that's not enough, we also walk you through the more straightforward (but still terrifying) Alabama statute, HB 314. Is it true that the bill fails to exempt rape victims? (Yes.) Is there anything to mitigate how awful this bill is? (Sort of.) After all that, it's time to find out the answer to TTTBE #126 about a man who shoots a would-be assailant three times, including once after the assailant is lying on the ground and whimpering. What kind of crime could this be? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. You can check out Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 to read these bills for yourself.
21-5-2019 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 1 seconde
OA279: Deutsche Wanna Loan?
Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about the pending Trump v. Deutsche Bank lawsuit over the pending Congressional subpoenas for Donald Trump's (and Don Jr.'s, and Eric's, and Ivanka's, and the Trump Organization's) financial records. Why is Trump suing Deutsche Bank, and what's going to happen? Find out why Andrew is still optimistic! We begin, however, with the breaking news that Trump has pardoned Conrad Black. Who is he? Should this be a scandal? (Yes.) Will it be? (No.) And is Conrad Black a gigantic racist? (Guess.) Then, it's time for the main segment about Trump v. Deutsche Bank. We talk about the unique legal standard in the Second Circuit that gives the Trump legal team a legitimate thread by which to argue for their injunction preventing Deutsche Bank from disclosing Trump's financial records to the House Committee. Then, it's time to answer a listener question from Rob Bate about conspiracy, obstruction, and the Mueller Report. After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #126 involving whether shooting a would-be assailant who has broken off her attack is homicide, and if so, what kind. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here’s a link to Conrad Black’s disgusting “Who Was Really At Fault In Charlottesville?” essay. Check out the Wikipedia entry on Michael McFaul. And his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. Here are the Trump v. Deutsche Bank documents -The Complaint -Trump’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction -Deutsche Bank’s statement -The House Committee’s Opposition -Trump’s reply memorandum We cited Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2010) for the proposition that the 2nd Circuit recognizes an alternative test. And, of course, credit for the fabulous “Deutsche Wanna Loan?” goes to our friends at Mueller, She Wrote Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
17-5-2019 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 51 seconden
OA278: The Founding Myth (w/guest Andrew Seidel)
Today's episode features a long-form interview with one of our favorite recurring guests, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He's on to discuss his just-released book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American. Because Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas could easily talk for a full hour (and then some)... why, that's exactly what they do. We hold Andrew Seidel's feet to the fire on the threat that Christian Nationalism poses to the U.S. judicial system, including an in-depth discussion of the future of the Establishment Clause. And if you haven't heard of "Project Blitz," you will after this interview. You don't want to miss it! After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #125 on the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence. Can the prosecutor introduce evidence of the "Ol' Switcheroo" on cross-examination? Listen and find out!
14-5-2019 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 12 seconden
OA277: The Republican Civil War
Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about what's going to happen with the House Judiciary Committee's vote to recommend holding Bill Barr in contempt of Congress. Is this all going to go nowhere in a Trump-dominated executive and a right-wing judiciary? Find out why Andrew's optimistic, and why he calls the underlying dynamic the coming Republican Civil War! All that and we revisit the Republican Andrew called the "key to the apex of Yodel Mountain" over a year ago! We begin, however, with a big MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner: you did it! Opening Arguments listeners opened up bar complaints with the Florida Bar about Congressman and nasty little troll Matt Gaetz, and now he faces a state bar disciplinary proceeding. He's not the only one, either; we got breaking news today that Paulie Manafort has indeed been disbarred by the District of Columbia! During the main segment, we break down (1) the contempt recommendation by the House Judiciary committee and exactly what is going to happen next; (2) what the House's "inherent sanctions" powers are, and whether they can really sic the Sergeant-at-Arms on Bill Barr (hint: yes!); (3) assertions of executive privilege; and (4) the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Donald Trump Jr. Is Richard Burr (R-NC) the next In Rod We Trust? Listen and find out... and brace yourself for the coming Republican Civil War! After all that, it's time for a Thomas Takes the Bar Exam featuring special guest Andrew Seidel. Together, the two sit in for an evidence question about the admissibility of prior bad acts. Brush up on your "Ol' Switcheroo" law and play along with us for #TTTBE!
10-5-2019 • 1 uur, 24 minuten, 55 seconden
OA276: Did Kansas Really Show Us The Way Forward on Abortion Rights?
Today's episode features an in-depth analysis of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, a recent decision out of the Kansas Supreme Court holding that -- whatever the U.S. Supreme Court does -- the Kansas state constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Join us to understand how this decision is important not only for Kansans but for all of us as we deal with the challenges created by the increasingly Trump-ified federal bench. We begin, however, with a brief update as to the status of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal that's been questioned by a recent ruling in Florida. We first covered this story in Episode 259. After that, it's time for fan-favorite "Are You A Cop?" combined with a listener question about whether (and how much) "corporations are people, my friend." Then, it's time for the main breakdown of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, with brief stopovers in Alabama (to discuss Bill 314), a prediction on the future of Roe v. Wade before this Supreme Court, and a full breakdown of the Kansas opinion and why it matters. After all that, it's time for yet another listener question, this time about the dissent in Hodes, what it means, and why the court spent so much time talking about the police power of the state, John Locke, and natural law. Confused? You won't be, after listening to this segment. And as if that wasn't enough, after all that, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #124 about Decomposing Snail Soda(TM) ("It's Maddeningly Addictive"). Find out if Thomas got this question right! Download Link
7-5-2019 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 42 seconden
OA275: Yes, Bill Barr Perjured Himself
Today's episode covers everything you need to know about Bill Barr's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (and his refusal to testify before the House). Has he perjured himself? (Yes.) Is there a reasonable defense of Barr? (No.) What's next? Listen and find out! Also, don't forget to show up for our monthly LIVE Q&A on our YouTube channel this Sunday, May 5th at 6 pm Eastern / 3 pm Pacific! We begin today's show, however, with a few Andrew Was Wrongs and one Andrew Was Right. Wrong? Andrew used "fulcrum" when he should have used "center of gravity," and it led to this amazing listener graphic explaining the difference. Also, Andrew relied upon a mislabeled graph in a complaint in Episode 273; technically, that's someone else who was wrong first, but hey. But Andrew was definitely RIGHT about the RNC platform, and now we have even more evidence to confirm it -- this time in the form of the testimony of J.D. Gordon to Mueller's team of investigators. And we break that down for you (because of course we do!). Then, it's time to delve into everything we know about Bill Barr's perjure-tastic trip before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Find out why Andrew thinks Barr isn't going to last, and why he definitely committed perjury. Oh, and figure out what Rule 6(e) is -- and why Barr is lying about that, too. After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #124... this time about Decomposing Snail Cola. Decomposing Snail Cola: It's the Only One With Decomposing Snails!
3-5-2019 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 19 seconden
OA274: Arguing Before the Supreme Court (with Monica Miller)
Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association and (we think!) the second-youngest person ever to argue before the Supreme Court! Just last month, Monica argued the AHA's position in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association before the Supreme Court, and we get to learn all sort of amazing behind-the-scenes information about the case. We spend the full hour with Monica Miller and learn how the AHA came to take this case, the roller-coaster-highs-and-lows of prevailing in the Fourth Circuit only to see it get taken up by a very conservative SCOTUS, and you get Monica's prediction as to how she thinks the Court might rule... as well as which members of the Court's conservative bloc were receptive to her arguments. Along the way, you'll also learn exactly how Monica got ready for her big day! After that, it's time for the answer to T(&M)TTBE #123, the dreaded real property question involving the subsequent sale of property, the doctrine of merger, and... well, let's just say this was a hard one! Did anyone get it right? You'll just have to listen and find out. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
30-4-2019 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 46 seconden
OA273: Sears, Steve Mnuchin & "The Producers"
Today's episode features a deep dive into a just-filed lawsuit by Sears against its CEO, Eddie Lampert, and certain directors, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The lawsuit alleges that Eddie & Steve managed to wreck not one but two long-standing American institutions. How? Why? And what does any of this have to do with one of the best comedies of all time, The Producers? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a very brief Andrew Was Wrong malapropism in which he confused a journalist with a philosopher. (There's a comedy setup in there somewhere.) Then, it's time for the main segment, which breaks down the background on Mnuchin, especially how he teamed up with billionaire Eddie Lampert, and then how the two of them managed to turn less than a billion dollars into full ownership of both Kmart and Sears, each of which had eight-figure valuations at the time. And, as if that wasn't enough, you can find out how Lampert (allegedly) ripped off the public on Mnuchin's watch, all while enriching himself. Drain the Swamp! You'll also learn all about The Producers-style fraud. You can make more money with a flop than with a hit! After all that, it's time for the glorious return of Thomas Takes the Bar Exam -- this time, featuring guest Monica Miller, who will be joining us for a full-length interview next episode. TTTBE question #123, however, is a dreaded real property question...will anyone be able to get it right?? Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Sears lawsuit, and here to check out Mnuchin's Wikipedia page. This page contains a good explanation of Delaware corporate law regarding duty of loyalty. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
26-4-2019 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 57 seconden
OA272: Impeachment, Redactions, and Russia
Today's episode brings you a trio of stories about the changing political landscape in the wake of the release of the [REDACTED] Mueller report; namely (1) will the President be impeached (and if so, can the Senate block the impeachment), (2) will we see a full, unredacted version of the report, and (3) just how pro-Russia is this administration, anyway? We begin with a question asked by listener Thomas S. as to whether Mitch McConnell can... well, Mitch McConnell any impeachment hearings. And while the answer may not surprise you, we think you'll want to know why. Then, we move on to another listener question, this one about whether the Trump campaign actually did soften language in the GOP platform related to Russia. Was that story actually "debunked?" (No.) We debunk the debunking for your edification! After that, it's time for a two-fer of embedded stories that bear on the question of redactions. We look briefly at McKeever v. Barr and evaluate whether that will prevent the ultimate release of the full Mueller Report as well as check in on developments in a FOIA case. No #TTTBE this week! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can read the Lawfareblog article that inspired Thomas S.'s question on impeachment. This is the full text of the 2016 Republican platform. Click here to read the Byron York article in the Washington Examiner that we debunk; here to read the original Washington Post article by Josh Rogin; and here to read the Politifact transcript of the Trump interview. Finally, check out McKeever v. Barr. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
23-4-2019 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 21 seconden
OA271: Dis-Barred (?) – The Mueller Report
Today, we break down the just-released [REDACTED] Mueller report. The top-line analysis? This is much worse than we anticipated in Episode 264. This report may not be the end of the road for Trump -- but it almost certainly is the end of the road for Attorney General William Barr. That's it! We spend nearly 90 minutes delving through the minutiae and correcting the egregious misquotations in Barr's now-laughable "summary" of the report. Show Notes & Links 1. You can click here to read the full Mueller report, and here for the searchable PDF. 2. We first covered Barr's summary in Episode 264, and you can read his laughably dishonest letter again right here. Oh, and we followed up with Prof. Randall Eliason in Episode 265. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected] Download Link
19-4-2019 • 1 uur, 28 minuten, 50 seconden
OA270: Happy Tax Day!
Today's episode brings you a trio of timely stories that all revolve around taxes: the Michael Avenatti indictment (for 29 courts of tax fraud), proposed legislation that some are arguing hamstrings the IRS, and (of course) the status of Congress's efforts to get Trump's tax returns. We also learned about very cool free online tax filing (Free File)... albeit too late to help most of you. Sorry about that. We begin with the lawyer who will never come on our show -- Michael Avenatti, who rose to fame on the back of the genius of Stormy Daniels, and whom we first debunked as a grifter just a few months later (way back in Episode 181!) Turns out he's been arrested for tax fraud. Who could have seen that coming? (Oh yeah, everyone.) After that, it's time for a deep dive into HR 1957, the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Is it really a Democratic-sponsored sellout to Turbotax, as some folks are saying? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to revisit the question of Trump's taxes. Can Trump really stonewall indefinitely on his taxes? (No.) Does the law pave the way for Democrats to get his tax returns? (Yes.) After all that, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #122 regarding the nonexistence of official documents. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! Andrew will be at the American Atheist convention in Cincinnati, Ohio this weekend, April 19-21. And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For 2020: Click here to access Free File. You can read Avenatti's indictment, and/or catch up on all his scumbaggery by re-listening to Episode 181. This is the text of H.R. 1957, this is the text of the Eighth Memoradum of Understanding between the IRS and Free File, and this is the text of 67 Fed. Red. 67247 which references the MOU. Here's an example of an alarmist op-ed in the Washington Post, and this is the initial article from ProPublica. We first outlined how to get Trump's tax returns back in Episode 226; that's still the right plan. We covered Rep. Neal's request in Episode 267. The applicable statute is 26 U.S.C. § 6013. You can read Consovoy's totally crazy crazypants letter here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
16-4-2019 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 1 seconde
OA269: Julian Assange Arrested
Today's episode breaks down the recent arrest of Julian Assange in England and what it means for Chelsea Manning (and Donald Trump!) We begin, however, with two separate sports-related stories: the improbable success of Marcus Rademacher in the Opening Arguments March Madness pool, and the (far sadder) saga of the Trump Administration's indefensible decision to overrule the MLB's deal with Cuba that would have brought an end to the dangerous human trafficking of ballplayers. After that, it's time for our deep dive into the sealed Julian Assange indictment and his arrest in England. We also discuss at great length exactly why Chelsea Manning is apparently being held in solitary confinement in prison -- even though her crime was commuted by President Obama -- and whether this indictment is relevant to the Mueller investigation. Oh, and Thomas gives you something to look out for! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #122 involving hearsay and a search for public records. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. Marcus Rademacher’s winning entry is linked here. 2. If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of Donald Trump singlehandedly destroyed the USFL. 3. Trump reportedly wanted to buy the Cubs in 2006. 4. We covered the MLB-Cuba deal in OA 237. 5. The Assange Indictment. 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud) 7. Chelsea Manning’s 4th Circuit brief can be found here. 8. And the Government’s response written by G. Zachary Terwilliger, who we covered in OA 212. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
12-4-2019 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 23 seconden
OA268: Article V Conventions (w/Lawrence Lessig)
Today's episode revisits the topic Andrew discussed briefly in Episode 252: Article V conventions convened for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. Joining Andrew is Prof. Lawrence Lessig, perhaps the most vocal liberal proponent of such conventions. Andrew, you may recall, was skeptical and concerned about the risks that such conventions could pose. Join Thomas, Andrew, and Prof. Lessig for a special 70-minute very deep dive and see if either one changes their minds! After that, it's time for TTTBE #121 regarding executive orders. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 464 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast as their legal expert. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here are the 14 states with Democratic legislatures and governors. This is the CNN/ORC poll Andrew referenced showing consistent high support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And this is the Koch Brothers-funded ALEC initiative to convene Article V conventions. Click here to read Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820), the first case Andrew discussed. Andrew also discussed Dyer v. Blair, 390 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975), and both lawyers talked about Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) as the primary case for the political question doctrine. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
9-4-2019 • 1 uur, 29 minuten, 28 seconden
OA267: Originalism and the Eighth Amendment (Bucklew v. Precythe)
Today's breaking news episode takes an in-depth look at Bucklew v. Precythe, a recent Supreme Court decision that lays bare the "originalist" view of the Eighth Amendment. Is it as bad as you think it is? (Yes.) We begin, however, with a look at Texas v. U.S. and the recent news that the Trump administration "changed its mind" and "will no longer defend" the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for our deep dive into Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court's analysis of how the 8th Amendment applies in capital punishment cases. After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain for some updates on the congressional investigations, including the Congressional request for Trump's tax returns and an EPIC FOIA request. And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #121 involving the constitutionality of Presidential executive orders. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Thomas was just a guest on the Cognitive Dissonance podcast; go check it out! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. Wikipedia entry on sodium thiopental can be found here. 2. Glossip v. Gross (2015) 3. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe (Apr. 1, 2019) 4. 8th Circuit’s opinion below in Bucklew 5. Congressional letter requesting Trump’s taxes 6. Bonus! Zuckerman amicus brief in the ACA litigation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
5-4-2019 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 48 seconden
OA266: Auer Deference & Florida Felons
Today's classic, deep-dive Tuesday takes an in-depth look at two critical issues in the news: first, the recent effort by the Republican governor and state legislature in Florida to undo the broadly popular Constitutional Amendment passed during the 2018 midterms to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, and second, the Supreme Court's next assault on the "administrative state," this time, by likely ending the doctrine of Auer deference. We begin with an update about pending oral arguments before the Supreme Court, as well as a notice that this episode was bumped from last Tuesday to make way for our emergency Barr Summary episode. Then, it's time for a deep-dive into Florida, the process of citizen-driven ballot initiatives, and exactly what the state legislature intends to do to undermine the will of the public. After that, it's time for yet another deep dive, this time into Kisor v. Schulkin, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, in which the petitioners have asked the Court to flat-out overrule yet another well-established conservative doctrine simply on the grounds that the Federalist Society doesn't like it. Then, as always, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #120 regarding a light touch on the bus. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing this same subject (but with respect to Utah). If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links In the pre-show, we discuss gerrymandering, which we last talked about in depth in Episode 251. We mentioned the Washington Post story about the DC City council overturning the $15/hr minimum wage initiative. This is the text of PCB CRJ 19-03, the Florida bill under consideration. And here, by the way, is the link to Andrew Gillum's voter registration initiative, Bring It Home Florida. We've never talked about Auer deference before, but we have discussed Chevron deference at great length, most recently in Episode 136. You can click here to read Auer v. Robbins, that 9-0 liberal decision authored by noted socialist Antonin Scalia. Finally, click here to read the underlying CAFC-Opinion in Kisor v. Schulkin. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
2-4-2019 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 43 seconden
OA265: The Investigation is Over, But the Investigations Continue (feat. Randall Eliason)
Today's breaking news episode contains a long interview with everyone's favorite former prosecutor, Randall Eliason, who helps answer some nagging questions about what we do know about the Mueller Report (alongside all the things we don't). We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right (about the Barr Summary and the news cycle!) and Wrong (about the specifics of the Assange indictment). Then, it's time for our main segment with Professor Eliason; you won't want to miss it! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #120 involving touching a very sensitive woman on the bus. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing Utah referendums, and Episode 188 of God Awful Movies (reviewing "Dead Man Rising"). If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links [None] Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
29-3-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 54 seconden
OA264: The Barr Summary of the Mueller Report
Today's emergency, late-breaking episode breaks down the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report and gives you some advance warning that the narrative on the Mueller report is about to shift very quickly in the opposite direction. Get ahead of the story by listening today! Due to the length of the breakdown, we don't have our regular segments today, but we do have (as always), the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #119 regarding contracts for the sale of wheat. Can Thomas keep his streak alive? Listen and find out! And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. This is the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report. 2. Ken Dilanian's tweet. 3. Glenn Greenwald's tweet. 4. We discussed disaggregation of the investigations in Episode OA: 259. 5. Confirms the Senate Intelligence Committee report we talked about in Episode OA: 190. 6. Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s OPEN SDNY criminal trial as of 1/8/2019 for obstruction of justice. 7. Mueller’s NFL report is here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
26-3-2019 • 1 uur, 27 minuten, 57 seconden
OA263: Nielsen v. Preap and Due Process Due Aliens
Today's breaking news episode contains your guide to the hotly-debated Supreme Court decision in Nielsen v. Preap, regarding how and whether aliens can be detained without due process. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief update on the Congressional Investigations we discussed in Episode 259 with the news that Hope Hicks will cooperate. Listen to our past episode if you don't realize how huge this is. Then, we move on to some news regarding a recent order handed down by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to the trans ban. We dive into the unique procedural issues giving rise to this order and tamp down on your enthusiasm that this may put the trans ban in jeopardy. Then, it's time for our main segment breaking down Nielsen v. Preap. We tell you exactly what this decision means along with the reasons why the Court reached the result it did. But that's not all! After that, we have our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain with two items: (1) an Andrew Was Right about the source of the National Enquirer's acquisition of compromising material about Jeff Bezos; and (2) a follow-up on the New York indictment of Paul Manafort. And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #119 involving long-term contracts for the sale of wheat. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247 2. We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick. 3. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004. 4. Pre Show: Hicks to cooperate. This is HUGE! 5. 1/4 – DC Cir. Reversed and vacated the injunction. 6. 1/22 – Supreme Court lifted the stays in two of those cases. We covered it the next day on Episode OA: 247. 7. Next day, on 3/8, the government filed a notice and this is the Plaintiffs’ response. 8. Here is the link DC Circuit's Opinions issued 3/8 9. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s 3/19 Order 10. 3/20 Gov’ts Motion to Clarify 11. Nielsen v. Preap is linked Here 12. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) vs. (c) – 1952 13. Demore v. Kim, 538 US 510 - Supreme Court 2003 14. Wall Street Journal article on Becker/Bezos 15. CHN article on the problems with New York’s double jeopardy. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
22-3-2019 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 26 seconden
OA262: Is Gideon v. Wainwright in Trouble??
Today's episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer. Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court? (You bet it is.) We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross and what that means for the 2020 Census. Then, it's time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit. As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos's lawsuit -- just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones's. Then it's time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho. What's the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today? Listen and (sadly) find out. After all that, it's time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws. Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118. Did Thomas get a dreaded real property question correct?? Listen and find out! And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross. Check out the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit. If you have the stomach for it, read Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho. In the question-and-answer section, we discussed this statute, Rooney's arrest record, and Cohen v. California. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
19-3-2019 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 5 seconden
OA261: Sentencing Paul Manafort
Today's extra-long episode contains your guide to all of the developments involving Paul Manafort over the past week. What does it all mean and what can we expect next? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief update on Episode 247 now that the Department of Defense has issued a Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM 19-004) implementing the ban on transgender service in the military. With the help of some friends of the show, we break down the most pressing issues on the near horizon. Then, it's time for All Things Manafort (TM), which sneakily includes a deep dive into exactly how the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines came into effect, when they were mandatory, how they became advisory, and what the hell happened in the Eastern District of Virginia. But that's not all! After that, we have a discussion on when sentences should run consecutively versus concurrently, and how that interacts with Judge Amy Berman Jackson's sentencing decision in Manafort's DC case. AND we also have breaking news regarding new state charges brought against Manafort as soon as both federal sentences were handed down. And if that's not enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #118 that's a dreaded real property question. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247 We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004. This is the Feb. 22, 2018 Mattis directive. Here are the DSM-5 guidelines on gender dysphoria We first discussed the Sentencing Guidelines in Episode OA: 162. The accompanying statute is 18 U.S.C. §3553. For a primer on “variances” versus downward departures, check out the Sentencing Commission guidelines. Judge Ellis transcript can be found here. Concurrent/consecutive is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3554. Manafort’s NY State indictment involves Residential Mortgage Fraud 1st degree (4 counts) under Penal Law § 187.25 and Falsifying Business Records 1st Degree (8 counts) under §175.10. We discussed Gamble v. U.S. in Episode Episode OA: 215. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
15-3-2019 • 1 uur, 34 minuten, 30 seconden
OA260: Res Ipsa Loquitur
Today's episode is inspired by a law student listener question about a recent Thomas Takes The Bar Exam hypothetical, and takes a deep dive into the wonderful and wacky world of res ipsa loquitur. What does that even mean? You'll have to listen and find out! We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment about Donald Trump and drone use, followed up by an Andrew Was Right segment about multiple states suing to block the implementation of Trump's HHS regulations relating to Title X that we discussed in Episode 258. Then it's time for that deep dive into res ipsa loquitur that you didn't know you wanted until now! After all that, it's time for some Bonus Tuesday Yodeling, in which we check in on Roger Stone's "Motion to Clarify" that was denied by Judge Jackson and an update on the House Republicans' hilariously misguided efforts to try and discredit Michael Cohen by pointing out that he sure seems to like to lie on behalf of his client. You won't want to miss it! Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #117. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's a link to the Daily Beast article about Trump and drone strikes we teased in the opening segment. We've uploaded both Title X complaints: the one filed by California as well as the multistate complaint. More on Title X: click here for the actual law (42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.); click here for the accompanying regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 59), and click here to read the new final rule promulgated by HHS regarding Title X. And, of course, you can click here to read Rep. Cummings's letter regarding the rule. This is Rep. Jordan's "own goal" letter. Finally, here's Judge Jackson's Order regarding Roger Stone. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
12-3-2019 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 51 seconden
OA259: Your Guide to the Congressional Investigations
Today's extra-long episode contains your guide to the Congressional Investigations, and specifically the 81 document requests sent out by Rep. Jerry Nadler to various Trump-related individuals and entities in connection with the Democratic Congress's larger investigation into corruption, ties with Russia, and general criminal behavior by the administration. What does it all mean? Who are the key players? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right -- Michael Cohen is producing drafts of his Congressional testimony, which may support his claim that Trump's personal lawyer, Jay "ACLJ" Sekulow edited his testimony to suborn perjury. Then, it's time for an in-depth look at the various documents requested by Rep. Nadler. What does it all mean? We break down the four major "buckets" of inquiries and tell you about some familiar faces... and some surprising new ones. After that, it's time to take a look into recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein case and correct some reporting as to whether his non-prosecution agreement has really been torn up by the courts. (It hasn't.) We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #117 about the use of university space for a debate on affirmative action. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest host on Episode 91 of the Skepticrat; go check it out! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. Cohen to produce drafts of his testimony to Congress. 2. Congressional Investigations 162 documents served on 81 different people. Documents here: 3. Here’s a handy guide to who’s who in the investigation. 4. Here’s Hope Hicks’s documents request. 5. Here’s our tweet out to Rep. Nadler regarding Nader’s document requests: 6. Epstein. This is the text of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 7. Judge Marra’s ruling can be found here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
8-3-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 54 seconden
OA258: Title X and Trump's War on Women
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the latest regulations promulgated by Trump's Department of Health and Human Services regarding Title X funding. What does all this mean? Listen and find out! We begin by breaking down Title X, the only federal grant program to poor people for family planning. And -- as you might imagine -- Title X explicitly excludes funding for abortions, but remains a critical source of funding for the critical work Planned Parenthood does with low-income women, including breast and pelvic examinations, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and screenings and treatments for sexually-transmitted infections and HIV. So, of course, the Trump Administration just defunded all of that. Find out how terrifying the new regulations are. After that, it's time for a ... lighter(?) segment in which we discuss the difference between clickwrap, browsewrap, and sign-in-wrap (?) agreements and learn about interesting new research into the readability (or lack thereof) of those agreements. Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #116 about a Weekend-at-Bernie's-style auto accident. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest host on Episode 91 of the Skepticrat; go check it out! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links On Title X: click here for the actual law (42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.); click here for the accompanying regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 59), and click here to read the new final rule promulgated by HHS regarding Title X. Here's the Sacramento Bee article indicating that California and other states intend to sue to block this rule from going into effect; and click here to read Rep. Cummings's letter regarding the rule. Here's a link to "The Duty to Read the Unreadable," the research paper we discussed in the last segment. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
5-3-2019 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 21 seconden
OA257.5 Michael Cohen Testifies, Part 2
Today's episode continues our breakdown of ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen's testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it that we started in Episode 257. What's next? Listen and find out! We begin where we left off -- with Michael Cohen. Find out how Cohen's testimony (and documents) implicate our favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels! After that, it's time to check in on Roger Stone's former flunky, Andrew Miller, and his quixotic quest to undo the Mueller investigation. That effort was just slapped down by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and we've got the full opinion covered for you. Then, it's time to check in on an odd development in the sentencing saga of Paul Manafort. What does the government's latest (redacted) filing portend? We're not entirely sure... but we want you to know what we know. And then -- after all that! -- we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #116 regarding a rather odd traffic accident. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on HBO's Vice News! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links1. Here are the documents Michael Cohen brought to Congress. 2. Marcy Wheeler’s article: How Trump Suborns Perjury. 3. DC Circuit’s opinion in Andrew Miller’s In Re: Grand Jury appeal. 4. Court’s sua sponte order. 5. Government’s sentencing memo in Manafort’s DC trial. 6. Manafort’s response memo. 7. Government’s Supplemental heavily redacted memo. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected] Download Link
3-3-2019 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 14 seconden
OA257: Michael Cohen Testifies, Part 1
Today's episode breaks down ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen's testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it. What's next? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an update on the American Legion v. American Humanist Association case where Andrew recently spoke at the AHA's #HonorThemAll rally. After that, it's time to find out about Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz who attempted to intimidate Michael Cohen and... may have gotten into some legal trouble thanks to this show and it's listeners! Then, we begin breaking down the Cohen testimony... but there's so much here to cover, we decided to keep going for yet another hour, and you'll get that tomorrow! For the first time, we don't end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question, but you'll get #116 tomorrow. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links1.18 U.S.C. § 1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. (B) governs witness tampering 2. Gaetz timeline from The Washington Post 3. Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-8.4(d) "prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." 4. Isaac Dovere at the Atlantic tweeting about Gaetz 5. Cohen is subject to 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Statements or entries generally (a)(2) "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or" 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1622 Subornation of perjury 7. Marcy Wheeler’s article: How Trump Suborns Perjury 8. Here are the documents Michael Cohen brought to Congress 9. Kansas potential emoluments violation Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
1-3-2019 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 42 seconden
OA256: The Bladensburg Cross
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Bladensburg Cross case currently pending before the Supreme Court with special guest Sarah Henry of the American Humanist Association. You'll learn that Andrew is going to speak at the AHA rally on Wednesday, February 27 right before oral arguments! We bookend the interview with an Andrew Was Right segment about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana first discussed back in Episode 234. And on the back end, we briefly discuss Clarence Thomas's bizarre and dangerous concurrence in McKee v. Cosby. Did Justice Thomas really call for the reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan? (Hint: yes, yes he did.) After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #115 about whether you can use facts contained in settlement negotiations. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here's My Story podcast; go check it out! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to check out the American Humanist Association. We first analyzed Timbs v. Indiana back in Episode 234. Click here to read Thomas's concurrence in McKee v. Cosby., and here to brush up on the classic New York Times v. Sullivan. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
26-2-2019 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 35 seconden
OA255: Wall of Emergency
Today's episode breaks down Trump's recent declaration of a state of national emergency as a pretext to build his big, dumb wall. What's being done about it? What can be done about it? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a trip up Yodel Mountain to observe one of its most bizarre members, Roger Stone, who recently posted a "notice of apology" after having uploaded a picture to Instagram of Judge Jackson with a reticule nearby. What does this mean for the gag order entered in his case? We tell all -- even before the court ruled! Next, it's time for our main segment about the wall. Andrew breaks down exactly where the funding is going to come from, and details all the lawsuits to try and block it. We end the segment, of course, with a (pessimistic) prediction. Then, it's time for even more yodeling. Is the Mueller investigation really coming to an end? If so, what's next? And what about We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #115 about offers to compromise. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here's My Story podcast; go check it out! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links1. Stone's notice of apology. 2. Stone's original partial gag order. 3. 18 U.S. Code § 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. 4. The Emergency Declaration. 5. The Presidential Border Security Victory Proclamation 6. Episode OA 243: BUILD THAT WALL!! where we first discussed states of emergency. 7. The Landowners lawsuit filed in DC, Sierra Club/ACLU lawsuit, and finally the California lawsuit filed by 16 states discussed in the show: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. 8. 31 U.S.C. § 9703 (TFF). 9. Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 10. 10 U.S. Code § 284 - Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime. 11. 10 U.S. Code § 2808 - Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency - discussed in OA: 243 and "Military construction" defined in 10 U.S.C. § 2801(a). 12. Cummings report on Saudi Arabia. 13. Manafort sentencing discussed DC in OA 253: Religious Freedom and Domineque Ray 14. The transcript of Judge Jackson's findings on Manafort's lies 15. Manafort gets a 38 in the E.D.Va sentencing memo 16. Cohen to testify publicly before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 27th. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
22-2-2019 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 41 seconden
OA254: Mueller, She Wrote!
Today's episode features a long interview with AG, the spectacular co-host of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast. She helps break down everything in the news that's Yodel Mountain-worthy... and along the way, you'll learn what might be next, what we might be overplaying, and much, much more! After the interview, it's time for the answer to Thomas (& AG) Take The Bar Exam #114, in which you always bet on bank!. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Somewhat coincidentally, Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! Andrew was also a guest on Episode 87 of So Here's My Story. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
19-2-2019 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 40 seconden
OA253: Religious Freedom and Domineque Ray
Today's episode tackles the recent Dunn v. Ray decision in which the Supreme Court used a procedural mechanism to allow the State of Alabama to execute a devout Muslim without affording him the same sorts of religious freedom they do to Christian inmates. Is it as bad as it looks? (Yes.) We begin, however, with an unfortunate Andrew Was Wrong (and a promise to get better)! Then, it's time for a depressing deep dive into Dunn v. Ray and what 'religious freedom' actually means to this Supreme Court. After that, it's time for a trip to Yodel Mountain where we review the latest ruling from Judge Amy Berman Jackson about exactly how big a liar Paul Manafort is. (Hint: yuge.) What does this mean for a potential Manafort pardon, and does the federal system have parole? Listen and find out! We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas (& AG!) Take the Bar Exam Question #114 about whether banks own everything. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links1. Supreme Court – Dunn v. Ray order 2. 11th Circuit ruling in Dunn v. Ray 3. We discussed Manafort’s plea on Episode OA: 211 4. Text of Manafort plea deal 5. Judge Jackson’s determination 6. 18 U.S.C. § 3624 Release of a prisoner (b) Credit Toward Service of Sentence for Satisfactory Behavior Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected] Download Link
15-2-2019 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 49 seconden
OA252: Constitutional Conventions & the "Proud Boys"
Today's episode features a deep dive into a listener question about Article V Constitutional Conventions. Are they dangerous? (Yes.) Are they a good idea? (No.) We also discuss the latest ridiculous defamation lawsuit.. and discover why this one is a little different. How? You'll have to listen and find out. We begin with a little bit of news you might have missed regarding Attorney General nominee Bill Barr. After that, it's time to answer a listener question about liberal and conservative groups that are angling for an "Article V" Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United (or do other things). We delve deeply into this provision of the Constitution and discuss the plusses and (mainly) minuses of this procedure. Then, it's time to dissect the recent lawsuit brought by Gavin McInnes, founder of the "Proud Boys," which Wikipedia calls "a far-right neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence." Find out why at least one formerly respectable lawyer thinks it's just crazy (and actionable!) that the Southern Poverty Law Center called this a "hate group." And find out why the real question in this lawsuit involves something called "tortious interference" and not defamation. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #113, which involved the constitutionality of abortion regulations. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! And, as always, if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the lawsuit filed by the "Proud Boys" against the SPLC. This is the Wikipedia entry on the "Proud Boys." Here's the full text of Article V of the Constitution. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
12-2-2019 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 33 seconden
OA251.5 Abortion Special - More on June Medical Services v. Gee
This rapid-response bonus episode tackles the Supreme Court's late-breaking stay of the 5th Circuit's opinion in June Medical Services v. Gee, with a particular emphasis on dissecting Justice Brett Kavanaugh's dissent. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We have also continued the episode with a deep dive into res judicata and the truly ominous implications of Kavanaugh's dissent at our Patreon page for supporters of the show at any level. Show Notes & Links Check out Episodes OA: 249 "Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today" and OA 251 for reference to our past discussion on this cases. Click here to read the Court's granting of the stay (which includes Kavanaugh's dissent), and here for the Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee. This is the reply brief filed by the petitioners. Here is the prior 2016 Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected] Download Link
10-2-2019 • 46 minuten, 11 seconden
OA251: Gerrymandering in Maryland Heads Back to SCOTUS
Today's episode returns to one of the most critical political issues of our time: gerrymandering of congressional districts, and in particular, the state of MD-6, which pits the Democrats as villains and Republican voters as the plaintiffs alleging disenfranchisement. Will that role reversal be enough to win approval from SCOTUS? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an update on the June Medical Services v. Gee lawsuit we first discussed in Episode 249. After that, it's time for the deep dive into gerrymandering, which takes a look at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland's 3-judge panel decision invalidating Maryland's 6th district; the motion to stay before the Supreme Court filed by the Plaintiffs; the opposition by the State of Maryland; and an amicus brief filed on behalf of the incumbent, Democrat David Trone. Then, we quickly clear up the status of Stormy Daniels' lawsuits. Did the recent dismissal with prejudice have anything to do with Donald Trump? (No.) We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #113 that's coincidentally about the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. Episode OA: 249 "Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today" for reference to our past discussion on the abortion cases. 2. Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee 3. If you’re curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting. 4. We last discussed gerrymandering in Episode OA: 185 5. We also did a deep dive into the Wisconsin case in Episode OA: 80 6. Here is the Maryland district court’s ruling court’s ruling 7. You can read the Plaintiffs’ brief 8. The state's opposition, filed by Brian Frosh 9. And the Trone amicus brief filed by Andrew’s friends at Zuckerman Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
8-2-2019 • 1 uur, 23 minuten
OA250: One Quarter of a Thousand Episodes!
Today's very special episode is our 250th! To celebrate, we've assembled a compilation of some of our favorite moments over the past two and half years. If you've ever wanted to share the show to friends and family, this is the episode to do it. In this episode, we explain: What the show's all about How liberal we are (or aren't) Whether we talk about non-political stuff How Trump changed the show, what "Yodel Mountain" is, what #ClearAsKushner is How seriously we take ourselves And much more! Then, as always, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #112, which involved an angry drunken... murder (?) As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links1. What’s the show about? It’s long-form investigative journalism into topics in the news that have a legal component to them from a left-leaning perspective. Shorter: If you like Rachel Maddow, you’ll like this show. 2. Things I’m most proud of: Stormy Daniels OA: 154 Hillary Clinton’s Damned Emails OA: 13 (36:35-38:16) Deep dives on abortion, on the Second Amendment, Abortion – OA: 27 and OA: 28 The Second Amendment – OA: 21 and OA: 26 The 2000 Election and Bush v. Gore Eps. 2-5 OA: 02 - 3. How lefty are you guys? I mean, we definitely call out our own, like Jill Stein’s recounts. OA: 25 (24:38-29:50) Or Robert Reich OA: 59 (43:40-45:00) Or Occupy Democrats… 4 . So is it all politics? A.) Practical stuff like defining terms like spousal privilege OA: 99 (2:30-8:50) or … not advice on how to choose a lawyer OA: 12 (9:19-10:40) …every Tuesday we do deep dives into legal topics, often apolitical. PG&E in Episode OA: 241 B.) and the wacky and bizarre OA: 12: Sovereign Citizens (19:52-24:12) OA: 132: Earth Court (38:09-55:00) 5. So what changed? We elected a criminally insane game show host who’s looting the public treasury? Yodel Mountain OA: 45: (38:20-41:03) Clear as Kushner OA: 53 (57:00-57:33) 6. How seriously do you take yourself? Pretty clownhornin’ seriously! OA: 166 (32:10-40:47)and (1:30:55 to end – intro) Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
5-2-2019 • 1 uur, 24 minuten, 12 seconden
OA249: Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today
Today's episode sounds the alarm as to whether our activist right-wing Supreme Court is ready to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and essentially permit the entire state of Louisiana to all but ban the right to an abortion in that state. We're NOT an alarmist podcast, but this is something you need to be watching. We also follow up on the Trump Shutdown, answer a listener question regarding our discussion of the Hilton lawsuit from last episode, and (of course) take our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain, this time on the back of one Roger Stone. Are these all just "process crimes?" And what the hell does that mean, anyway? Strap in and find out! We begin, however, with a brief look at the end of the Trump Shutdown and what's likely to come next. After that, we tackle some questions and misperceptions regarding our story of the lawsuit against Hilton hotels from Episode 248. Then, it's time for the main segment, which takes a look at a pending Supreme Court motion and discusses what this means for the future of Roe v. Wade and the right to a legal abortion in this country. Yes, it really is that significant. Then, it's time for a trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss "process crimes" rapid-fire round of questions about Trump's shutdown. Why is Congress still getting paid? Who can sue, and why haven't they? Find out the answers to these questions and more! We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #112 about murder most foul! As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. Ann Coulter was responsible for the shutdown and Trump's approval ratings take a hit. (Thomas Was Right) 2. A series of bipartisan proposals show support for ending shutdowns. 3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 4. Several years ago, Andrew wrote on reasonable religious accommodations at Disney when he was still working for The Man. 5. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey in OA: Episode 27 and OA Episode: 28. 6. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016) 7. June Medical Services v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2018) 8. MOTION TO STAY filed by June. 9. Dershowitz – what the defenders are saying and why it’s Wrong . Followed by Seth Abramson’s Smackdown thread. 10. Stone Indictment 11. More on Randy Credico from his wiki entry and twitter. 12. Roger Stone will work the media 13. Concord Management & Consulting media discovery. 14. The joint motion in Roger Stone's case and the "voluminous and complex" evidence against him. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
1-2-2019 • 1 uur, 25 minuten, 22 seconden
OA248: The Cert(iorari) Show!
Today's episode features a deep dive into a bunch of different issues around granting the writ of certiorari -- "cert" -- and some of the intricacies of how the Trump administration is trying to take advantage of the activist Supreme Court. Oh, and we also tackle a lawsuit that's being grossly misrepresented by the media. We begin with a discussion of the unique procedure of "cert before judgment." What is it, how rare is it, and... why is the Trump administration trying to deploy it with alarming frequency? Listen and find out! Then, we revisit litigation regarding the census that we first discussed back in Episode 232, and the administration's effort to... get cert before judgment (of course). Our main segment looks at something Andrew has never seen before: essentially, a four-justice dissent from a denial of certiorari. Why is this weird? Listen and find out as we dissect that very opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. Next, we tackle a recent clickbaity headline involving a dishwasher allegedly showered with money for "skipping work to go to church." Find out why the reporting on this case has been totally irresponsible and what really happened. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #111, which involved a contract for defective water bottles. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links "Cert before judgment" is governed by Supreme Court Rule 11. We first discussed the census litigation back in Episode 232. You can read the motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, as well as the U.S. reply. Click here to read the "statement" regarding the denial of cert in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. Click here to read the CBS news report on the Hilton lawsuit, and here to read the (even worse) reporting by the Friendly Atheist blog. By contrast, you can read the actual Jean Pierre Hilton overtime lawsuit and the jury's verdict. Oh, and here's the EEOC's statement limiting punitive damages in retaliation cases to just $300,000 (not $21 million). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
29-1-2019 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 42 seconden
OA247: Status of the Trans Ban
Today's episode tackles the recent Supreme Court orders in the Trump ban on transgender service members. How did we get here and what's next? Listen and find out. We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment regarding the history and modern politics of the State of the Union. After that, it's time for the main segment, which dives deeply into the history of trans service in the U.S. military, including a discussion of what it means to bring a case pursuant to the equal protection clause and what the future likely holds. Then, it's time for a rapid-fire round of questions about Trump's shutdown. Why is Congress still getting paid? Who can sue, and why haven't they? Find out the answers to these questions and more! We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #111 regarding the delivery of water bottles. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Thomas was just the guest host on Episode 179 of God Awful Movies. Give it a listen! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. The must read Advocate Article interviewing long-standing friend of the show Alice Ashton. 2. 2016 Open Service Directive: Directive-type Memorandum (DTM) 16-005, "Military Service of Transgender Service Members" 3. 2017 Trump Memorandum rescinding the Open Service Directive 4. 2018 Mattis Policy: Military Service by Transgender Individuals 5. Mattis “Study”: Dept of Defense Report and Recommendations on Military Service by Transgender Persons 6. We last discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech (7th Cir.) and Zarda v. Altitude Express (2nd Cir.) in Episode 152 7. Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) 8. FLSA lawsuit regarding the Shutdown 9. Federal Judiciary extended to February 1st 10. 13 U.S.C. § 1350 - Criminal penalty Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at [email protected]
25-1-2019 • 1 uur, 34 minuten, 56 seconden
OA246: Alex Jones & Sandy Hook
Today's episode features a deep dive into the latest developments in the lawsuit brought by parents of the victims in the Sandy Hook Massacre against Alex Jones and Infowars for repeatedly portraying the school shooting as a hoax. We begin, however, with a question regarding our views of the 2016 Presidential Election from a Trump supporter who's hate-funding us. Hey, we're good to our word! After that, it's time to dig in to the defamation lawsuit against Alex Jones. We tackle the minutiae -- standing, jurisdiction, statute of limitations -- and the big issues as well. If you want to know where defamation law is headed in this era of "fake news," well, this is the show for you! Then, it's time for a quick visit to Yodel Mountain to check in on Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen. Because of course it is. Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #110, which involved a dentist being sued for malpractice and product liability. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 138 of the Naked Mormonism podcast. Give it a listen! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. NYT articles on using third-party votes to hack elections. The Secret Social Media Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics and how the Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race. 2. Politico story on the Justice Democrats plans to mount primaries against incumbent Democrats it deems too moderate with the apparent backing of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 3: NYT on Alex Jones and Sandy Hook 4. Media Matters 7 minute, 13 second compilation on Alex Jones about Sandy Hook. 5. Media Matters timeline of Jones promoting conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook. 6. Yodel Mountain: Rudy Giuliani is not helping! 7. WSJ on Cohen and poll-rigging and Cohen's response on the story: "As for the @WSJ article on poll rigging, what I did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of @realDonaldTrump @POTUS. I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it." 8. The GLORIOUS "Women for Cohen" Twitter account: Because some things on twitter make you ask, "Why?". Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
22-1-2019 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 15 seconden
OA245: More on Barr and the Shutdown
Today's episode covers the William Barr confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee to become the next Attorney General, as well as the ongoing legal battles regarding Trump’s shutdown of the government. We begin with Barr, who’s proven to be a complex individual. How did he fare in his testimony before the Senate? Are there reasons for optimism? Is his notorious memorandum (which we covered in Episode 237) not really that bad? The answers… are all over the map, and will certainly surprise you. Then, we discuss the ongoing shutdown, which looks to prove Andrew Wrong by not ending tomorrow. What are the legal implications? How are they going to be resolved? Is there any hope, either politically or legally? Listen and find out! Finally, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #110 which involves a dentist being sued for malpractice and product liability. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 138 of the Naked Mormonism podcast. Give it a listen! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links 1. Kamala Harris' statements regarding her opposition to Barr's nomination.2. Former Justice Department official of the George H.W. Bush administration Zachary Terwiliger and the speculation that he will once again be Barr's deputy. 3. Barr’s concerning views on executive power and reasons he has drawn so much criticism. 4. We discuss our past Episode OA 237: Lowering the Barr (Memo) 5. Jonathan Turley, GWU Law professor and gadfly, arguing about Barr 7. Jack Goldsmith, HLS professor, has written a response. “A Qualified Defense of the Barr Memo: Part I” 8. The 1995 OLC memo: Application of 28 U.S.C. § 458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges 9. 28 U.S.C. § 458: Relative of Justice or Judge Ineligible to Appointment10. Marist polling data on the Shutdown 11. NTEU v. Mulvaney 12. Barr's written testimony Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
18-1-2019 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 52 seconden
OA244: Clarence Thomas vs. Thurgood Marshall
Today's episode features a little more about Corey Robin, including the argument addressed on the show that criticisms of Clarence Thomas's competence are a racist echo of similar claims made against Thurgood Marshall. Find out why Andrew made the mistake he did in Episode 242, and also why Andrew still stands behind his answer to that question. We begin with Robin, winding our way from his blog posts to the jurisprudence of two of Andrew's heroes, Laurence Tribe and Ronald Dworkin! Ultimately, you'll learn why Andrew continues to defend the proposition that attacks on Thomas's competence are not inherently racist. After that, it's time for some behind-the-scenes news about Attorney General nominee William Barr just in time for his confirmation hearings. What company does he keep when it comes to interpreting the Founding Fathers? Listen and find out! (Hint: this isn't good.) Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding real property. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Robin in Episode 242 as part of a listener question. You can click here to read his Tweet criticizing us for engaging in "tribalism" and playing identity politics. We discuss two Robin blog posts in depth: (a) "Everything is in the Hands of Heaven Except the Fear of Heaven", and (b) "The Scandal of Democracy" It was, in fact, Elena Kagan who said "we're all textualists now" in 2015. Click here to check out Tribe's 2008 book, The Invisible Constitution, which openly contests originalism (and directly engages Scalia in particular). You should also check out the Ronald Dworkin speech that was turned into an article in the Fordham Law Review. This is the 2001 Keith Whittington law review article that credits Robin with an assist. This is Whittington's page at the Federalist Society. We engage with this tweet from Robin listing four supposed examples of intellectual laziness leveled against Thurgood Marshall. Some Thurgood Marshall links: (a) his confirmation as reported by the New York Times; and (b) this lovely retrospective on Thomas's career penned by Juan Williams for the Washington Post. Finally, you can read some more stuff on Clarence Thomas: (a) the 2014 rates of agreement among Supreme Court justices; and (b) this anecdote reported by attorney Matt Howell. If you have HeinOnline, you can read the Mark Tushnet law review article in the Georgetown Law Review we discuss on the show. (Otherwise, you're stuck reading the first page only.) Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
15-1-2019 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 17 seconden
OA243: Build That Wall!!
Today's episode tackles the mechanics of the shutdown and whether (and how) Donald Trump can build that wall despite widespread opposition. We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about the identity of Corey Robin and the incorporation doctrine. Enjoy a fun segue to Gitlow v. New York and why you should never repeat the trope that free speech doesn’t include the right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. After that, it’s a deep dive into… what exactly is a “government shutdown,” anyway? What laws govern this? Why do some federal employees have to keep showing up? Isn’t that “involuntary servitude?” And can Trump declare a state of emergency or use “military eminent domain” to just build the wall anyway? Then, it’s time for our weekly trip back to Yodel Mountain. In Rod We Trust… so why is he stepping down? And what’s the deal with that secret foreign-owned corporation that shut down an entire floor right before the holidays? Listen and find out! Finally, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #109, another dreaded real property question! As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Serious Inquiries Only Episode 175 Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Anti-Deficiency Act 31 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq. Federal courts notice Futurama “pain monster” clip Military eminent domain: 10 U.S.C. § 2663 1973 report on delegated powers National Emergencies Act: 50 U.S.C. § 1621 Search the federal register for “National Emergency” 10 U.S.C. § 2808 33 U.S.C. § 2293 Ackerman op-ed -DC Circuit Court opinion in mystery foreign corporation case Manafort sentencing memo Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected][podcast src="https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8220119/height/360/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/preload/no/direction/forward/" height="360" width="100%" placement="bottom" theme="standard"] Download Link
11-1-2019 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 17 seconden
OA242: Larry Klayman is Still Crazy After All These Years
Today's episode features a deep dive into the Bivens action, with a little help from everyone's favorite nutso conspiracy theorist lawyer, Larry Klayman -- and his newest client, Roger Stone sidekick Jerome Corsi. Find out what sorts of wacky shenanigans these guys have been up to, and why they think they've hit a $350 million jackpot. (Hint: they haven't.) First, though, we begin with an insightful question from a listener regarding Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence and whether the frequent criticism of Justice Thomas as lazy is tinged with racism. During the main segment, it's time for the breakdown of the latest Corsi lawsuit. It's a doozy -- it's everything you'd expect from someone who hired Larry Klayman (on purpose!) to be his lawyer. Then, we answer a fun listener question about court filings, time zones, and the international date line. It's Around Opening Arguments In 80 Days! After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding civil procedure. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This Vice article collects some of the strangest facts about Clarence Thomas, and this is the Jeff Jacoby op-ed that (factually) reports regarding Thurgood Marshall's declining years and -- in Andrew's opinion -- was misrepresented by Corey Robin. Click here to read Corsi's lawsuit against Robert Mueller, and here to read Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), the recent Supreme Court case limiting Bivens actions. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
8-1-2019 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 51 seconden
OA241: Is This The C-Hook That Could Send PG&E To Prison??
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the potential criminal liability for Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in connection with the 2018 California Wildfires and the c-hook that just might be the linchpin to the whole thing. Are people going to prison? Listen and find out! We begin by celebrating a brand-new holiday: Oversight Day, with the inauguration of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. We talk about funding, job postings, and how they all relate to Yodel Mountain. After that it's time to get deep -- and we mean deep -- into PG&E's latest court filing, what it has to do with a 2010 explosion and a 2016 order, and what really caused the California Camp Fire. Along the way you'll learn about obstruction of justice (again!), the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (really!), and how a corporation can have an "abandoned and malignant heart." Then we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 about interstate car collectors-slash-thieves. As always, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Your Oversight Day goodies include (a) this fabulous Savannah Guthrie interview with Speaker Pelosi; (b) this equally fabulous Twitter chain from Paul Krugman; (c) the House operations budget for 2019; (d) the Axios story on Republicans seeking to hire investigative counsel; and (e) the screenshot of the jobs posting. PG&E filings include (a) the PGE Superseding indictment; (b) the jury verdict; (c) the Sentencing and probationary conditions entered by the court; (d) the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 written questions about the wildfires; (e) the Court's supplemental order seeking an amicus from the California Attorney General's office; (f) the answers filed by PGE - PGE Answers, the US Attorneys' Office, and the California AG; and finally, the PGE written Report - Exhibit A that contains the information discussed on the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
4-1-2019 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 19 seconden
OA240: Libertarianism is Still Bad & You Should Still Feel Bad
Today's special, hangover-free New Years' episode follows up on some of the things we discussed during our Episode 238 interview with Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast, including the never-controversial subject of libertarianism. Strap in; it's been an interesting year! We begin with a listener question from Ricardo, who asks some follow-up questions to our original hot take on libertarianism waaaaaay back in Episode 22. Is there a robust theory of property rights that serves as a side-constraint on government action? You'll have to listen and find out! (Hint: no.) After that, Andrew further explains the "Are You A Cop?"-style segment from Episode 238 regarding whether Brett Kavanaugh "voted with the liberals" in an abortion case. (Hint: no.) You'll figure out all you need to know about the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Gee v. Planned Parenthood and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood... as well as getting a deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent and an explainer on the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a! After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (and Matt) Take The Bar Exam #107 regarding defamation. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out Matt & Mattingly's Ice Cream Social podcast! We first discussed libertarianism back in Episode 22. You can click here to read Clarence Thomas's blistering (and inaccurate) dissent from the Court's denial of cert in the Planned Parenthood cases; click here to check out 42 USC § 1396a(a)(23), the statute at issue; and click here to read the Washington Examiner article discussed on the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
1-1-2019 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 15 seconden
OA239: The Fourth Circuit's Puzzling Emoluments Ruling
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the just-released one-page order by the Fourth Circuit staying all discovery in the Emoluments litigation brought by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. How do we fill more than an hour's worth of time on one page? Why is this ruling really, really bad for everyone?? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief foray up Yodel Mountain to discuss (1) the reports circulating that Michael Cohen's phone was in Prague in the summer of 2016, and (2) the ethics review of "Acting" Attorney General Matthew Whitaker concerning the Mueller probe. After that, it's time for a deep dive into the Emoluments litigation, the strange procedural posture of Trump's response, and what this means for civil litigation generally (and this case in particular). You won't want to miss it! Then we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #107 on defamation. As always, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Whitaker ethics review letter, and here to read the Steele dossier. We last discussed the Emoluments litigation in Episode 226. You can check out all of these documents: the Fourth Circuit's order, the motion to stay, and the opposition filed by Frosh. Trump's argument is based on 28 USC § 1292(b) and relies on Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 671 F.2d 426 (11th Cir. 1982). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
28-12-2018 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 56 seconden
OA238: Merry Christmas! (With Matt Donnelly)
25-12-2018 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 45 seconden
OA237: Lowering the... Barr (Memo)
Today's Rapid Response episode takes a look at the just-released Law'd Awful Memo written by Attorney General nominee Bill Barr and sent to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein concerning the Mueller investigation. Are the argument(s) raised in the memo any good? What does this mean for the future of the Mueller investigation? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief foray into everyone's favorite show topic: BASEBALL LAW! Find out about the agreement reached between MLB and Cuba, and how (of course) Donald Trump can screw it up. After that, it's time for an Andrew Was Wrong (and Maybe Not Wrong) on David Pecker and AMI. Along the way, we'll learn about the corruption case against Sun-Diamond Growers in connection with former Agriculture Secretary (and nearly-Senator) Mike Espy. Then, we delve deeply into the Barr memo, taking apart the legal "arguments" and featuring a guest appearance from one Antonin Scalia! Then, it's time to tackle the rather surprising decision by Judge Sullivan in the Michael Flynn sentencing phase. What happened? Did he go off the rails? After all that, we end with an all new Thomas (and Matt!) Takes The Bar Exam #106 on how to best transport heroin from Kansas City to Chicago and what the judge can instruct the jury... it's complicated, but you won't want to miss it! And, as always, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out Matt & Mattingly's Ice Cream Social podcast! Baseball law: Here's the press release from MLB. We discussed U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Calfornia, 138 F.3d 961 (D.C. Cir. 1998), aff'd, 526 U.S. 398 (1999). Don't forget to read the Barr memo for yourself, and you can also check out the Wall Street Journal article that leaked it. ...And here's our good buddy Antonin Scalia smacking down the logic used therein. You can check out the government's sentencing memorandum in Michael Flynn's case as well as the memo filed by Covington & Burling on Flynn's behalf. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected] [podcast src="https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8001044/height/360/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/preload/no/direction/forward/" height="360" width="100%" placement="bottom" theme="standard"] Download Link
21-12-2018 • 1 uur, 29 minuten, 5 seconden
OA236: Stairway to... the Supreme Court??
Today's deep-dive Tuesday tackles a long-running lawsuit by the estate of Randy California -- the founder, lead singer, and guitarist for the band Spirit -- alleging that Led Zeppelin stole the iconic riff for "Stairway to Heaven" from Spirit's 1968 song "Taurus." With assistance from Thomas on guitar, we tackle all of the fun issues that are currently pending before the 9th Circuit... and possibly headed to the Supreme Court! We begin, however, with two follow-up questions that got cut from Friday's blockbuster show regarding the American Media, Inc. plea agreement: (1) Could David Pecker still be indicted? and the big one: (2) Can Donald Trump pardon a corporation? The answer... may surprise you! After that, it's time for a deep dive into the law regarding musical copyright and an exploration of the similarities and differences between "Taurus" and "Stairway to Heaven." Where do Andrew and Thomas come out? You'll have to listen to find out! After that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #105 regarding a bank and a car dealership attempting to modify a contract. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We discussed the AMI deal in Episode 235. You can check out Spirit's "Taurus" by clicking here. Click here to read the original (and awesome!) Randy California v. Led Zeppelin complaint; you can also read (1) the jury verdict by the trial court; (2) the brief filed by Taurus in the 9th Circuit; (3) the opposition brief filed by Led Zeppelin; (4) the 9th Circuit's ruling; (5) the petition for rehearing en banc filed by Led Zeppelin; (6) the opposition to that motion for rehearing en banc; and (7) the just-filed reply brief by Led Zeppelin (filed 12-10-08). Phew! Finally, click here for a mashup of "My Sweet Lord" (George Harrison) and "He's So Fine" (The Chiffons). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
18-12-2018 • 1 uur, 29 minuten, 14 seconden
OA235: Corporations Are People, My Friend... Criminal People
Today's Rapid Response episode takes a look at three breaking stories related to the White House: (1) the recent ruling requiring Stormy Daniels to pay Trump's attorneys' fees; (2) the sentencing of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen; and (3) most importantly, the plea deal signed by American Media, Inc. -- parent company to the National Enquirer -- to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office. We begin by revisiting the question of whether, in fact, Stormy Daniels is still a legal genius. (Hint: she is.) But what does it mean that a court just ordered her to pay Trump nearly $300,000 -- and why could it have been much, much worse? Listen and find out. After that, we check out Trump's ex-"fixer" and the former Taxi King of New York, Michael Cohen, who was just sentenced to three years in prison. Then it's time for a fascinating look into a non-prosecution agreement reached between the Special Counsel's Office and American Media, Inc. that tell us an awful lot about where Yodel Mountain is headed. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #105 on modifications to a contract. As always, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's the merits ruling defamation we referenced during the show; you can also check out Trump's motion for attorneys' fees, Avenatti's (rather weak) opposition brief, and the court's ruling directing Stormy to pay almost $300,000. And because it never ends, check out the mediation questionnaire filled out by Avenatti for their appeal to the 9th Circuit. You know you want to read the press release regarding Michael Cohen's sentence; after that, you can check out the sentencing memoranda filed by the SCO's office ("good cop") as well as the brief filed by the SDNY ("bad cop"). Finally, this is the AMI agreeement as well as the DOJ guidelines on prosecuting corporations. Oh, and just for fun, here's Jose Canseco's audition to be Trump's Chief of Staff. #YesWeCanseco Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
14-12-2018 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 23 seconden
OA234: Civil Forfeiture, Berkeley & More!
Today's deep-dive Tuesday tackles a viral oral argument before the Supreme Court in Timbs v. Indiana regarding civil forfeiture -- and a delightful question (that inspired the graphic for the show notes) about whether the state can seize your Bugatti for speeding. Oh, and we check back in on the Ann Coulter v. Berkeley lawsuit that was recently settled. What happened? Listen and find out! We begin with the Berkeley settlement, and break down exactly what the University did (and didn't) promise to do going forward. Is this a "big win" for the right wing? (Hint: no.) Then, it's time to delve deeply into Timbs v. Indiana and discuss the law of civil asset forfeiture, the doctrine of proportionality, and even the concept of incorporation. Yes, it's a crazy Civ Pro kinda day.. you won't want to miss it! Then, it's time for a BRAND NEW SEGMENT -- "Yodel Mountain Remembers!" We think you're gonna love it! Oh, and we also tackle a terrific listener question about the "apology doctrine" and the nation that made apologies famous -- Canada (of course). After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #104 regarding government action and the warrant requirement of the Fifth Amendment. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Berkeley settlement. This is a link to the oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana. Finally, you can check out Maryland's "apology law," Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 10-920(b), by clicking here. This is the delightfully demented Corsi lawsuit against Mueller, Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
11-12-2018 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 58 seconden
OA233: [REDACTED] & Wisconsin
Today's Rapid Response episode takes a look at two pressing issues: (1) Mueller's [REDACTED] sentencing memorandum with respect to Michael Flynn, and (2) the naked power grab by lame-duck Republicans in Wisconsin. Along the way, we'll also cover a bunch more legal stories, but you knew that already! We begin high atop Yodel Mountain, where we cover not only the [REDACTED] Flynn memorandum but also Roger Stone taking 5 and a truly bizarre conspiracy theory advanced by Rudy Giuliani. Then, it's time for the main segment, in which we tackle Wisconsin SB 887 and its component bills that are designed to weaken drastically the strength of the incoming Democratic governor, Tony Evers. Is it as bad as everyone says it is? (It's worse.) After that, it's time for a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment. Turns out Andrew Was Wrong about both Julian Assange and American paddlefish! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #102 on evidence and the admissibility of hearsay. Find out how Thomas outsources the decision and more. And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman show talking court-packing and more. Give it a listen! And, as always, if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can read the (non-censored) baseline Sentencing Memorandum filed by Mueller here, and the [REDACTED] Supplemental by clicking here. Here are the texts of the various Wisconsin bills: SB 884, SB 886, and the final bill, SB 887. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
7-12-2018 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 12 seconden
OA232: Trump's Plan to Weaponize the Census (& Bridgegate!)
Today's deep-dive Tuesday takes us back to a time in which politically-motivated revenge was actually seen as a scandal; namely, Chris Christie's Bridgegate. There's a new ruling out of the Third Circuit that affects two Christie staffers, and... well, you'll just have to listen and find out! Then, it's time to take a long look at ongoing litigation surrounding the Trump Administration's efforts to deter Democrats from registering for the Census, thus reducing their voting power. What does a trial in district court have to do with the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari? After that, we answer a terrific Patron listener question regarding the European loser-pays-legal fees model versus the American pay-your-own-way model. Yes, the American model seems counter-intuitive at best (and downright regressive at worst), but is shifting to a loser-pays model the answer? Andrew talks about his experiences and the guys go through a bunch of options. And finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #103 on the Takings Clause! As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman show talking court-packing and more. Give it a listen! And, as always, if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can read the 3rd Circuit's opinion in Bridgegate by clicking here. Click here to read the Court's order in the Census litigation, which shows that Thomas-Alito-Gorsuch would have granted a stay. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
4-12-2018 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 2 seconden
OA231: The End of the Beginning (for Trump)
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." - Winston Churchill. And yes, today does, in fact, mark the end of the beginning of the Mueller Investigation... and perhaps for Donald Trump. Why? You'll just have to listen and find out! In this super-sized episode, we tackle: (1) Michael Cohen's just-announced plea to a new count of lying -- this time in connection with his prior testimony before the Senate and House Intelligence Committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 elections; (2) A follow-up on Andrew Miller and Concord Management and Consulting, including a fascinating new blog written by Randall Eliason with Yodel Mountain implications; (3) Paul Manafort's apparent repudiation of his plea deal with Mueller, what that means and when we'll know; (4) Jerome Corsi's public refusal to plead and cooperate with the Mueller investigation over WikiLeaks and Julian Assange; and (5) An update in the Brain Frosh Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #103 on a property owner who has the rug pulled out from under him due to a new law. If you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the new Information to which Cohen pled guilty to today. This is the BuzzFeed article on Cohen, Felix Sater, and Trump's efforts to get a building in Moscow over the past 30 years. Oh, and here's a link to Trump's tweet that he has "ZERO INVESTMENTS IN RUSSIA." We discussed the Andrew Miller lawsuit in OA 229; you'll definitely want to read the two new filings: Silbey's supplemental amicus "letter", and Christenson's... something. You'll definitely want to check out Randall Eliason's blog analyzing the Concord Management and Consulting lawsuit and what it means for 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy charges (of the sort that might be filed against Trump). Here's Manafort's original plea deal, and this is the Joint Status Report filed earlier this week. Oh, and this is Manafort's waiver of his right to appear at the scheduling conference. This is the Marcy Wheeler article we broke down; for the other side, here's the Wall Street Journal report suggesting Manafort lied about non-Trump-related personal business dealings. This is the Guardian article connecting Manafort to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks; here is the fantastic Washington Post article and timeline on what that means if true. Here's Corsi's draft deal with Manafort that he rejected. Finally, we discussed the Brian Frosh lawsuit against Matthew Whitaker in Episode 227; you can now read the amicus brief filed by 15 state attorneys general. Phew! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
30-11-2018 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 9 seconden
OA230: TOO MUCH MEAT!
Today's deep-dive Tuesday tackles that viral case caption you've probably seen floating around Twitter: "United States v. 1,855.6 pounds of American Paddlefish Meat." Is the sack of fish meat really going to have to show up in court? Will it have a lawyer??!? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a roundup of all the lawsuits filed against Matthew Whitaker, including the most recent one brought by Senators Blumenthal and Hirono. Oh, and we check with an op-ed written by... the Torture Guy? What's going on here?? The main segment delves into in rem jurisdiction in order to explain the "paddlefish meat" caption. If you like legal minutiae -- and let's be honest, you're listening to this podcast -- you'll love this segment. Then, it's time for a truly great listener question holding Andrew's feet to the fire on Net Neutrality and the Munsingwear doctrine. It's not an Andrew Was Wrong, but it is an... Andrew Could Have Explained That Better? Either way, you won't want to miss it. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #102 on hearsay. Find out if Thomas's coin can pass the bar exam! And as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to check out Lawfareblog's clearing house for Whitaker complaints, and click here to read John Yoo's (surprising) op-ed arguing that Whitaker's appointment was illegal. If you want to read the actual meat filing, click here. Special shout-out to law professor Brian L. Frye for tipping us off to United States v. 43 1/2 Gross Rubber Prophylactics! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
27-11-2018 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 27 seconden
OA229: Andrew Miller & the Appointments Clause
Today's Thanksgiving Special / Rapid Response episode takes a look at the single most important Yodel Mountain case pending right now: Andrew Miller's lawsuit before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Find out what it all means! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right and roundup on the status of the Jim Acosta lawsuit, which has been mooted thanks to the injunctive relief won by CNN (and the White House's decision to restore Acosta's credentials). Then, it's time for the deep dive into Andrew Miller and his Don Quixote-esque foray into our legal system to challenge Robert Mueller's authority. Along the way you'll find out who Andrew's Shattered Glass doppelganger is, and learn more than you ever thought possible about the U.S. Constitution's "Appointments Clause." Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #102 on evidence and the admissibility of hearsay. Find out how Thomas outsources the decision and more. And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links The "recalcitrant witness" statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1826. Click here to read Judge Howell's U.S.D.C. trial court opinion. We pulled a ton of documents for you in the Miller case, including (a) Concord's motion to intervene; (b) Concord's amicus brief on the merits; (c) the eminently silly Sibley amicus brief; (d) Robert Mueller's merits brief; (e) Andrew Miller's merits brief; (f) Andrew Miller's supplemental brief; and (g) Rober Mueller's supplemental brief. Phew! Don't be afraid to check out In Re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987) for the case that's directly on point. Finally, you can read the "nearly a heart attack" regs on Mueller's funding (28 CFR § 600.8(a)(2)) here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
22-11-2018 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 27 seconden
OA228: Jim Acosta, Sovereign Immunity & More!
Today's Deep Dive Tuesday tackles the motion for preliminary injunction and underlying lawsuit brought by CNN and Jim Acosta against the Trump White House for revoking his press credentials. You'll get to hear about how Andrew Was Right... last Thursday (!) As a bonus, you'll get a listener question that segues into a mini-deep-dive on the "sovereign immunity" doctrine! We begin, however, with some initial information about the still-sketchy situation surrounding Michael Avenatti and his arrest for domestic violence. After that, it's time to traipse through the CNN/Acosta lawsuit, which is still relevant today (even though the PI was, as Andrew predicted, granted). Then, it's time to answer a really interesting listener question about Oklahoma's new anti-vax governor that winds up with a discussion of the sovereign immunity doctrine. It's a rabbit trail you'll want to go down! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #101 on SPACE LAW. Find out Lando's (and Thomas's!) fate! Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links On Avenatti, you can see the "SurefireIntel" tweet here. You can read the Acosta/CNN underlying complaint, the accompanying memorandum of law supporting the Acosta TRO motion, and the Trump response. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
20-11-2018 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 7 seconden
OA227: Brian Frosh Takes On Matthew Whitaker & More!
Today's Rapid Response Friday takes a deep dive into the recent lawsuit filed (actually, amended) by Maryland's ace Attorney General, Brian Frosh, challenging the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General. We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Right (and Wrong, sadly) roundup of a bunch of issues: (1) whether the midterm elections were a "Blue Wave" (they were); (2) the formation of a new breakaway conservative legal group; (3) Jeff Flake's efforts to protect Robert Mueller; (4) Whitaker's recusal status; and (5) the election of Kyrsten Sinema to the U.S. Senate in Arizona. Phew! After that, it's time for the deep dive into Maryland's ACA lawsuit that.. somehow morphed into a judicial request to determine that Matthew Whitaker cannot be the Attorney General? How is that even possible?? We explain it all... and along the way, we let you know what arguments the State of Maryland has raised that the next Attorney General should be Rod Rosenstein instead. It's a fascinating lawsuit, and you'll even get a brief discussion of the "canon of constitutional avoidance." (!!) After that, we (briefly) discuss the California wildfires in light of.. SEC disclosure requirements??!? Hey, that's why you listen, right? Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #101 on SPACE LAW, involving deadbeat Ewoks and Lando Calrissian. (No, really.) You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read 538's "Yes, It Was a Blue Wave" article. Here is the announcement of the formation of the "Checks and Balances" legal society. Lawfare has filed a FOIA request for all documentation regarding Whitaker's ethics advice and potential recusal. Click here to read Maryland's motion for preliminary injunction; here to read the Flood memorandum that contains Trump's likely responses; and here to read the court's scheduling order. Finally, click here to read the SEC's guidelines on when to file a form 8-K, and here to read the 8-K filed by PG&E. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
16-11-2018 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 55 seconden
OA226: How Dems Can Force Trump's Tax Returns
...using this one weird trick! (but for real.) It's a new intro this week and Thomas hopes you don't mind the departure from the regular quotes. After that Andrew has updates on several cases for us! They involve: the Emoluments Clause, a 40 foot cross, Net Neutrality, and Monsanto! Then we get to the meat of our episode, which is about how the Democrats in the House can now use their power to force Trump's tax returns out. It has lots of twists and turns and isn't as straightforward as you might think! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
13-11-2018 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 36 seconden
OA225: Elections Have Consequences... for Jeff Sessions
Today's Rapid Response Friday covers the two things that are definitely on everyone's minds: (1) the midterm elections, and (2) the fate of the Mueller investigation and more in light of President Trump's decision to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Elections have consequences... don't they? We begin with a roundup of the outstanding legal issues in connection with the midterms. After that, it's Yodelin' time. What happened to G. Zachary Terwilliger? Is the Mueller investigation in trouble? What can we do?? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links No links this week! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
9-11-2018 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 13 seconden
OA224: Andrew Debates Prof. Justin Walker!
At long last, we've got the audio from Andrew's debate with University of Louisville Law School professor, member of the Federalist Society and former Brett Kavanaugh clerk Justin Walker! The debate was put on by the American Constitution Society and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. It was moderated by the ACLU! After that, it's the thrilling conclusion to TTTBE100.... Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected] Download Link
6-11-2018 • 1 uur, 32 minuten, 17 seconden
OA223: A Victory for Voting Rights in Pennsylvania!
Today's Rapid Response Friday revisits some cases we've previously discussed with recent positive developments: the Summer Zervos lawsuit and the future of political gerrymandering in Pennsylvania. We begin with the Zervos lawsuit we first covered in Episode 176, in which a state trial court judge has ordered Donald Trump to respond to discovery served by Zervos's attorney. What's next for the President and why does it have Yodel Mountain implications? You'll have to listen and find out! After that, we revisit our discussion from Episodes 146 and 148 regarding the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion redrawing congressional maps in that state. The U.S. Supreme Court -- and yes, that's the Brett Kavanaugh-and-Neil-Gorsuch-laden Supreme Court! -- just declined to intervene to protect the Republicans. Why is that, and how is that a map forward? We tell all! Then, we return to the Gary Hart story we discussed last episode. Was Hart really set up? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #100 that is the dreaded real property question Thomas needs to get right in order to hit "60% at the half." Can he do it?!?? You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the cert petition in Turzai v. Brandt and here to read the opposition. This is the James Savage response on Gary Hart. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
2-11-2018 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 56 seconden
OA222: Entire WV Supreme Court Impeached?!
Today's episode tackles an issue you've all been writing about: what exactly is going on in West Virginia, where the entire state supreme court has been impeached? We break it down for you! First, though, we start off with a roundup on voter suppression, including Georgia's "exact match" requirement being used to deny new registrations. After that, it's time to go deep, deep down the rabbit hole in West Virginia. It's... kind of amazing, actually. Then, we move to a breaking story involving Andrew's first political crush. Yes, before there was Liz Warren, we had "Atari Democrat" Gary Hart. Find out what's in the news regarding Hart. After all that, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #99 regarding the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links No links this week as Andrew is traveling from Undisclosed Location B. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
30-10-2018 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 16 seconden
OA221: Elections Have Consequences, Florida Edition
Today's Rapid Response Friday takes us back to a well-worn trope here at OA that we can't emphasize enough in late October: elections have consequences! Specifically, we take a look at the importance of past and future elections in the pivotal swing state of Florida. We begin, however, with a quick statement on the Trump administration's apparently-leaked policy regarding trans people and some new developments. After that, it's time for the ever-popular Andrew Was Wrong segment, with two things that.. well, Andrew got wrong: Whitewater and Paul Manafort (!) Then it's time for a deep dive into the Florida Judicial Nominating Commission and various constitutional amendments that are on the ballot this November, including one that takes a swipe at our favorite doctrine. But that's not all! We move on to discuss 202 Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Avenatti. It's not pretty. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #99 regarding criminal procedures. After getting it wrong last week, Thomas needs to go 2-for-2 to get to the coveted "60% at the half" -- can he do it?!?? You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For more on the history of jury sentencing at the state level, check out this 2011 law review article by Melissa Carrington that's well worth a read. Click here to read the Tampa Bay Times article suggesting that the next court nominee is going to be a conservative regardless of the election; here for the official Florida government website describing how the JNC is selected; and here for an in-depth discussion of the history of the changes to that process. This is Detzner v. Anstead, the Florida Supreme Court decision we discussed regarding bundled amendments, and you can click here to read the text of the proposed Florida amendments. Click here to read the Grassley referral of Avenatti and Sweatnick to the DOJ. And we broke down the Avenatti-Frank lawsuit first in OA Episode 181. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
26-10-2018 • 1 uur, 28 minuten, 13 seconden
OA220: Carter Page, Clownhorn
Today's Rapid Response Tuesday takes an in-depth look at OA's new favorite clownhorn, Carter Page, and his delightfully mad lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, the law firm of Perkins Coie, and (I think) the Ancient Order of the Illuminati. Strap in! We begin with some good ol'-fashioned yodeling, with a roundup of stories with Yodel Mountain implications, including (1) the report that Mueller's probe will conclude after the midterms; (2) Paulie Manafort's latest motion; (3) the departure of White House counsel Don McGahn; and (4) some news regarding Michael Avenatti's White House run in 2020. Then -- oh man -- it's time for a deep dive into Carter Page's lawsuit regarding this September 23, 2016 Yahoo news story, written by esteemed reporter Michael Isikoff, that Mr. Page delightfully believes is defamatory. After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #98 regarding constitutional law standards for a group home. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the Bloomberg News article suggesting that Mueller's probe will conclude after the midterms. You can click here to read Judge Ellis's order denying Manafort's motion to appear in street clothes. This is the New York Times story on McGahn's departure. Click here to read the FEC data on Michael Avenatti's Fight PAC. This is the Sep. 23, 2016 Yahoo story This is the Carter Page lawsuit, which you absolutely must read. Oh, and check out the (heavily redacted) FISA application showing that the FBI believes Page to have been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government. This is the September 23, 2016 Isikoff story in Yahoo that Page believes is defamatory; we also referenced Page's trip to Moscow, the terrorism statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2332b, and, of course, the fact that Page previously sued Yahoo over this exact same story and lost. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
23-10-2018 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 28 seconden
OA219: Harvard and Affirmative Action
Today's Rapid Response Friday takes us to the front lines of the affirmative action debate with the trial of Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, a lawsuit brought by a single-issue right-wing activist determined to end diversity as a criterion in school admissions. (And yes, we tell you what we really think!) We begin, however, with some news regarding the Monsanto trial we profiled back in Episode 202. After that, it's time for a deep dive into the nuances of affirmative action with the SFFA v. Harvard lawsuit. What exactly does it allege? What's the status of affirmative action law? Where is this lawsuit going? Listen and find out! Then it's time for a brief Andrew Was segment, in which Andrew Was Wrong about the UK Supreme Court, and Andrew Was... Something... about the good news coming out of the Florida Supreme Court. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #98 regarding constitutional standards. Thomas needs to go 2-for-3 after a recent audit showed a bank error in his favor. Can he do it? You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first covered the Monsanto trial back in Episode 202; go check it out! Click here to read the Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard lawsuit. To understand the history of affirmative action, listen to our Episode 93, and check out both Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the cases we discussed in the episode. I mentioned the Etzkowitz et al. article on critical mass; you can read that here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
19-10-2018 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 4 seconden
OA218: Ashers Baking Co., Net Neutrality & Stormy!
Today's (thankfully) Kavanaugh-free episode -- in honor of Thomas's appearance at QED in Manchester -- takes an in-depth look at the Ashers Baking Co. case, as well as developments at the state level to push for Net Neutrality. Oh, and we revisit OA's favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels. Strap in, it's going to be a fun ride! We begin with a lengthy discussion of the UK Supreme Court's ruling in Ashers Baking Co., which has been called the "Masterpiece Cakeshop of the UK." Is that accurate? Listen and find out! Next, we walk through California's effort to protect Net Neutrality in that state, and the lawsuits filed by parties on all sides. What's going to happen? We tell you! Finally, we take a brief look at Stormy Daniels and update you on the status of her lawsuit in California. And then, of course, we end with an all new Thomas (and Chad) Take The Bar Exam #97 regarding the tort of negligent misrepresentation. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the UK Supreme Court's ruling in Ashers Baking Co. We first discussed the Trump FCC's decision to roll back Net Neutrality in Episode 125. You can read the 22-state lawsuit challenging that order here. This is California's Bill SB-822, and you can also check out the industry brief filed in the lawsuit challenging it. Oh, and if you need more Hobbs Act (28 U.S.C. § 2342) in your life, we've got you covered. Finally, click here to check out Trump's motion to dismiss Stormy's lawsuit, and here to read her interview in "The Cut" (??) where she regrets body-shaming Trump. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
16-10-2018 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 3 seconden
OA217: Can Ethics Complaints Take Down Kavanaugh?
Today's Rapid Response Friday follows up on the State of Florida and... sadly... returns one last time to the story of Brett Kavanaugh and the ethics complaints lodged against him and referred to the Tenth Circuit. Oh, and we give you real stuff you can do to make a positive difference! You have to listen! We begin with a follow-up to Tuesday's episode where we break some news regarding the Democratic Party's lawsuit in Florida to extend registration for voting in the 2018 midterms before checking in on the Common Cause/League of Women Voters lawsuit we first discussed on Episode 216. Then it's time to tackle the ethics complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh and referred out by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #97 regarding the tort of negligent misrepresentation. Thomas needs to go 4-for-4... can he do it? You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Show Notes & Links This episode is sponsored by Audible! Go to audible.com/lawpod or text lawpod to 500500 for the 30-day trial and free audiobook! Click here to read the court's denial of the TRO filed by the Democratic Party's in Florida to extend registration for voting in the 2018 midterms. And click here to read the newly-filed Common Cause/League of Women Voters lawsuit we first discussed on Episode 216. We first discussed the Code of Judicial Ethics on Episode 193. This is the Roberts letter referring the Kavanaugh complaints to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Click here to read the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability, with proposed changes. The law we discussed is 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq. WHAT YOU CAN DO! Click here to comment on the proposed changes to the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability. And if you want to apply to work for Fix The Court, check out their notice here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
12-10-2018 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 43 seconden
OA216: Court Packing & More (w/guest Chad Schneider)
Today's (thankfully) Kavanaugh-free episode takes a look at Florida Governor Rick Scott's blatant court packing attempt with the Florida Supreme Court, and the lawsuit filed by Common Cause to try and stop him. What will happen? Listen and find out! First, though, we begin by revisiting our controversial episode (197) on 3-D printed guns by bringing on a real-life expert in 3-D printing to handle some technical questions and understand the arguments and counter-arguments regarding the proliferation of cheap and dangerous handguns. After that, we delve into Florida Gov. Rick Scott's transparent attempt to game the system to pack the Florida Supreme Court. What does this mean for "Constitutional Hardball" and the state of the law in Florida? Listen and find out! Then, we give you a brief preview of next week's story on California's net neutrality law. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and Chad) Take The Bar Exam #96 regarding the breach of an employment contract. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Show Notes & Links We first discussed 3-D printed guns back in Episode 197. Click here to read the Slate article on Scott's effort to pack the Florida Supreme Court, and you can also read the 2017 lawsuit filed by Common Cause (and others) that was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court. Check out guest Chad Schneider's business, Root3 Labs. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
9-10-2018 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 38 seconden
OA215: Is Gamble v US the Real Reason Behind Kavanaugh?
Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles the #1 emailed story to us this past week: is the real story behind the Kavanaugh nomination that the Trump administration needs him on the Supreme Court to rule in Gamble v. U.S. regarding the dual sovereignty doctrine as it applies to double jeopardy? We begin with a quick note about the New York Times story on Trump's taxes which will be covered on Serious Inquiries Only. Then it's time to figure out this claim about Gamble v. U.S. that fact-checking website Snopes rated as "true." Is it, though? (Hint: no.) We'll tell you everything you need to know about the 5th Amendment's double jeopardy clause and what it might mean for anyone Trump pardons once Kavanaugh gets to the Court. And speaking of which, we segue from that claim to an update on all things Kavanaugh this week, including the Mitchell letter, the FBI investigation, Flake's statements, and even (gasp!) an Andrew Was Wrong. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #96 regarding the breach of an employment contract, with next week's guest Chad Schneider playing along. Thomas needs to go 5-for-5... can he do it? You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Show Notes & Links You can read the New York Times story on Trump's taxes, and listen for Thomas's take on Serious Inquiries Only. The leading case on the "dual sovereign" doctrine as applied to the double jeopardy clause is Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985). Click here to read the administration's opposition brief in Gamble v. U.S., and here to check out the entire docket. This is the Jed Shugerman article we referenced regarding New York's "dual sovereigns" law. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected] Download Link
5-10-2018 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 29 seconden
OA214: Free Speech, NAFTA & Trump's Trans Ban
Today's Kavanaugh-free episode is a classic, three-story, Deep Dive Tuesday into (1) a recent free speech case involving protesters at a Trump rally; (2) the status of Trump's efforts to ban trans service personnel from the military; and (3) whether Trump can unilaterally abrogate NAFTA. Strap in -- it's going to be a long ride! We begin with an examination of Nwanguma v. Trump at both the district court level and the recent decision from the 6th Circuit. Should protesters be allowed to sue Trump and his campaign staff for incitement to riot? Listen and find out! After that, we examine the status of Trump's latest (Mar. 23, 2018) order on trans personnel in the military. Is there... good news out of the Ninth Circuit??!? Then, we check out the history of presidential withdrawals from treaty obligations, a case involving a former Presidential candidate (Barry Goldwater) versus a sitting President (Jimmy Carter), and Donald Trump's constant claims that he can abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Is any of this true? The answer almost certainly will surprise you! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #95 regarding the Congressional delegation of rule-making authority to the Forest Service. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Show Notes & Links If you want to check out our Kavanaugh patron-only special, sign up here and then click here for the bonus download! You can read the Nwanguma v Trump district court decision as well as the decision by the 6th Circuit. Click here to read Trump's latest (Mar. 23, 2018) order on trans personnel in the military, and here is you want to check out the Ninth Circuit's stay order. On NAFTA: you can read the NAFTA treaty itself (including Art. 2205), the NAFTA Implementation Act, and you'll definitely enjoy perusing Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
2-10-2018 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 29 seconden
OA213: Rachel Mitchell to Cross-Examine Dr. Ford at Kavanaugh Hearings
Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles (ugh) the ongoing Judiciary confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh in light of Dr. Ford's allegations, before segueing into an interesting question from super-listener Teresa Gomez. If you want to know everything about Rachel Mitchell (and so much more!) -- well, you've come to the right place! We begin with some good news about QED in Manchester, UK and your ability to hang out with Thomas! After that, it's time to figure out what's going on with Kavanaugh. We examine (1) the political landscape; (2) the status of Blumenthal v. Nat'l Archives, Case No. 18-02143-RDM seeking FOIA information from the National Archives and the CIA; (3) the unprecedented appointment of career sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to handle the questioning of Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh; (4) the strange circumstances surrounding Michael Avenatti's claim to represent additional women allegedly harrassed by Kavanaugh; and (5) what Dianne Feinstein wants. Phew! After that, we somehow have time to answer a fascinating question about pro se litigants giving testimony in court! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #95 regarding Congressional delegation of rule-making authority. Will Thomas get back on track with just one extra wrong answer to give in the next six questions? Yu'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Show Notes & Links For an in-depth analysis of Dr. Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh, listen to Episode 158 of Serious Inquiries Only. On politics: here's the 538 polling data that Kavanaugh becgan historically unpopular and is getting worse. And this is the (overblown) HuffPo story on the Judicial Crisis Network. Check out the docket entries in the Blumenthal case! Rachel Mitchell has no Wikipedia entry (yet!), but was profiled in the National Law Journal and gave this interview to the "Foundations Baptist Fellowship International." Bill Montgomery's endorsement was reported in this Arizona Central story. Avenatti's client, Julie Swetnick, signed an affidavit under penalties of perjury that you can read here. We detailed Avenatti's ethical lapses on Episode 181. Check out Sen. Feinstein's letter on the Kavanaugh hearings. Finally, in answering Teresa's question, we relied on U.S. v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. 1989)... scroll down to part C! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
27-9-2018 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 33 seconden
OA212: Rod Rosenstein and... G. Zachary Terwilliger?
Today's episode is that rare Rapid Response Tuesday, necessitated by the persistent rumors that Donald Trump is about to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Is it true? How bad are things if it is? And who is this mysterious G. Zachary Terwilliger? You'll have to listen to know for sure! We begin by examining the New York Times reporting that predicated the efforts to force out Rosenstein. Listen and you'll learn why is Andrew confident that these reports are false -- and get a rare "Randall Was Right" segment to boot! After that, we look to the statutory line of succession if Rosenstein is indeed fired, and we wind up at Noel Francisco and... Sideshow Zach? How did THAT happen? Bonus: Is Francisco a Trump hack? All signs point to... Then, we look to the statutory protections for Mueller even if Rosenstein is fired. Will the entire Russia investigation be fed into a Fargo/Deadpool 2-style woodchipper? And, if all that wasn't enough, we also have a mini-deep dive into the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq. Does it matter if Rosenstein was fired or if he resigned? Finally, we end -- at long last! -- with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #94 regarding the Forest Service's new rules. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Lots! Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27 at Impellizzeri's Pizza; to attend, just RSVP on this Facebook link. Show Notes & Links This is the first New York Times hit piece on Rosenstein from Friday, 9/21, and this is the follow-up suggesting he would "resign." You can, of course, read the 25th Amendment's Section 4 for yourself; you'll quickly ascertain that it is, in fact, a 'clown horn' argument. The 28 U.S.C. § 508 sets forth the statutory line of succession for the DOJ. Here's the initial Senate confirmation vote on Francisco. You can also read his "oopsie" letter to the Supreme Court below: This is the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq. We first discussed it back in Episode 126. Finally, click here to read all about G. Zachary Terwilliger! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
25-9-2018 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 31 seconden
OA211: Manafort Flips (and more on Kavanaugh)
Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles (1) Paul Manafort's plea deal and (2) the surprise resumption of the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh in light of Dr. Ford's allegations, which are discussed in depth on Episode 158 of Serious Inquiries Only. What should you look for during Monday's hearings? Listen and find out! We begin with an acknowledgment of the story sent to us by several hundred thousand listeners regarding crazy person Cody Wilson. After that, it's time for an important Andrew Was Wrong: Paul Manafort did not plea over the weekend; he pled guilty pretty much the second we stopped recording! We break down everything there is to know about his deal, including the strong incentives Manafort has not only to cooperate but to roll over and expose his belly to Mueller's team in hopes of being thrown a bone or two. Oh, and we time-travel back to the 19th century to answer a super-interesting listener question on asset forfeiture! Then, it's time to discuss Kavanaugh again, in light of the troubling accusations made by Dr. Ford and other issues, including the Democratic Senators's FOIA lawsuit compelling the production of Kavanaugh's documents that are being withheld while the Republicans try and cram through his nomination. It's not a pretty segment, but we think you'll walk away equipped to understand Monday's hearings. After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #94 regarding Congressional delegation of rule-making authority. Will Thomas get back on track with just one extra wrong answer to give in the next six questions? Yu'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27; click here for the Facebook RSVP link if you'd like to attend! Show Notes & Links For an in-depth analysis of Dr. Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh, listen to Episode 158 of Serious Inquiries Only. You should really read through Mr. Ostrich-Jacket's plea deal for yourself. (And yes, that's the show graphic.) This is the TPM article Andrew criticizes; as you'll see from the Sentencing Table, Manafort faces 210-262 (or more) months in prison. Here's the polling aggregator from our friends at 538.; as of today, Democrats have a 1-in-3 chance of retaking the Senate. Click here to read Blumenthal v. US Nat'l Archives, the FOIA complaint filed by the Senate Judiciary Democrats, and here to read the Motion for TRO (which does not yet have an accompanying Memorandum). FOIA is 5 U.S.C. § 552. Finally, this is the text of the Sanai letter describing Alex Kozinski and seeking an investigation into Kavanaugh's knowledge and testimony. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
21-9-2018 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 18 seconden
OA210: Cash Bail, Glucksburg and More
Today's episode takes two deep dives: first, into California SB10, which eliminates the "cash bail" system of pretrial detention in California, and second, into the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Washington v. Glucksberg. What does it all mean? You'll have to listen to know for sure! We begin, however, with an update on Wells Fargo's $1 billion remediation plan first discussed in Episode 169. After that, we tackle California SB10, which is now law -- even though it won't go into effect until October of 2019. Is this a good or a bad thing? Would it change your mind to learn that the ACLU flip-flopped on this bill? Listen and find out! From there, we move into an in-depth analysis of Glucksburg and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court. Then, we give you a little retroactive speculation regarding the possiblity that Paul Manafort might plead guilty. Yes, it's a living record of the fact that we record on Thursdays -- but we think you'll like the analysis anyway. Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #93 regarding double jeopardy. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27 at Impellizzeri's Pizza; to attend, just RSVP on this Facebook link. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Wells Fargo's fine and remediation requirements in Episode 169; you can check the OCC's News Releases for yourself to see when the rejection becomes public (if ever). For now, we had to make due with this Reuters article. You can read California SB10, as well as check out the opposition from both Human Rights Watch and the ACLU. Here is the full decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). During the Glucksburg segment, we discussed Sen. Coons's question to Kavanaugh about it, and, of course, Ted Cruz's "Washington Generals" questions during the confirmation hearings. Also, we referenced earlier written answers from Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings discussing Glucksburg. Glucksburg was explicitly distinguished in the Obergefell decision. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
18-9-2018 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 32 seconden
OA209: Kavanaugh's Confirmation
Today's Rapid Response Friday is all about the conclusion of the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. What did we learn? What's still outstanding? Are liberals really guilty of trying to bribe Susan Collins? And, most importantly: what can we do about any of this?? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an important Andrew Was Wrong. After that, we delve into all the week's issues surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, including: (1) the status of Kavanaugh's nomination; (2) whether liberal crowdfunding efforts really count as efforts to "bribe" Republican Sen. Susan Collins; (3) an in-depth look at Kavanaugh's written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee; (4) a shockingly misleading question from Opening Arguments's good friend, Sen. Ted Cruz; and finally (5) a preview of next Tuesday's discussion of a weird case called Glucksburg. Phew! After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #93 regarding double jeopardy. Did Thomas learn enough from the Ashley Judd Law'd Awful Movie of the same name?? We'll find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27 at Impellizzeri's Pizza. Be there and be square! Show Notes & Links This is the (ugh) Newsmax exclusive about Collins's accusations of "bribery;" you can click here to see what Ad Fontes thinks about Newsmax as an organization. The bribery law, of course, is 18 U.S.C. § 201., and the court decision we discuss is McDonnell v. U.S., 136 U.S. 2355 (2016). Here's the late-breaking Feinstein letter. We strongly recommend reading Kavanaugh's answers. If you can stomach his misuse of the word "precedent" every few lines. This is the transcript of Ted Cruz's "Washington Generals" questions of Kavanaugh, and if you want a head start on next week, you can start reading Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
14-9-2018 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 56 seconden
OA208: Moore is Still Less
Today's episode takes a deep dive into a 2003 Supreme Court decision, Stogner v. California, and discusses the Constitution's ex post facto clause. Why? Listen and find out! After that, we break down the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. Is it meritorious? Who's Moore's lawyer? Will you laugh? There's only one way to know! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #92 regarding the introduction of testimony against a gang member. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's the link to Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003). Click here to read the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
11-9-2018 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 23 seconden
OA207: Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearings
Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles the ongoing Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Brett Kavanaugh -- including an analysis of documents that broke literally after we recorded the show! Find out if any of this can slow down Kavanaugh's presumed path the SCOTUS. We begin, however, with listener feedback on our rather controversial Episode 205 (with Andrew Seidel) as well as follow-up emails regarding 3-D guns and our contributions to SwingLeft. After that, we break down the critical documents leaked today by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) that show 1) Kavanaugh's nakedly partisan approach to the court; 2) Kavanaugh's nonexistent view of the value of precedent when it comes to Roe v. Wade; and 3) possible perjury. Is this a big deal? YES. Will it move the needle? We'll see. After that, we return to Yodel Mountain to discuss Paul Manafort's impending DC trial and the somewhat-overlooked plea by W. Samuel Patten. Who's that? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #92 regarding impeaching the testimony of a gang member at trial. If you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Thomas was recently the guest masochist on this week's God Awful Movies, reviewing "New World Order." It's hilarious -- don't miss it! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here are the Kavanaugh email and Kavanaugh email 2 documents discussed during the main segment. For more Kavanaugh document fun, check out this comprehensive New York Times article. This is W. Samuel Patten's Criminal Information, to which he pled guilty, and here is the Statement of the Offense, which explains the connection to the Trump campaign and White House. Finally, this is the late-breaking document showing possible perjury. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
7-9-2018 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 36 seconden
OA206: Will This ONE WEIRD TRICK Unravel the Mueller Investigation?
Today's episode takes us back to Yodel Mountain, where we take a look at a popular article making the rounds suggesting that (you guessed it) this ONE WEIRD TRICK might unravel the entire Mueller investigation. Should you be worried? (No.) We begin, however, with the rare (but delightful!) Thomas Was Right segment revisiting 3-D guns and the Arms Export Control Act. What's going on? Listen and find out! In the main segment, we take apart this Politico story suggesting that McKeever v. Sessions hold the key to Yodel Mountain. After that, we tour what's left of Yodel Mountain to discuss the latest developments with our buddy Paulie M. Did he really try to plead out in advance of his next trial? What's next on the horizon for everyone's favorite ostrich-vest-wearing money launderer? Then, we end with Thomas (and Andrew!) Take the Bar Exam Question #91 regarding the separation of church and state and graduation prayers. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's the injunction granted in the 3-D guns case. This is the Politico story regarding McKeever v. Sessions. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
4-9-2018 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 58 seconden
OA205: More on Masterpiece, Younger & the Catholic Church (w/guest Andrew Seidel)
Today's episode tackles two big church/state separation stories currently circulating right now: the recent lawsuit filed by the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the Pennsylvania grand jury investigation of the Catholic Church. And, of course, there's no better guide to these issues than friend of the show and Director of Strategic Response for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Andrew Seidel. We begin the Masterpiece, going in depth on the case we first discussed back in Episode 201. Find out what the Andrews think will happen to this case -- and along the way, you'll learn something about Younger abstention! After that, we turn to the Pennsylvania grand jury investigation regarding the Catholic Church, discuss statutes of limitation, and learn what we can do about it going forward. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and Andrew!) Take The Bar Exam #91 involving -- by sheer coincidence! -- the First Amendment and prayers at a student graduation. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links To sign up for the FFRF's action alerts, text FFRF to 52886. We first discussed the new Masterpiece proceeding in Episode 201; you can also check out the case we discussed on Younger abstention, Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, 477 U.S. 619 (1986). You can click here to read the full Pennsylvania grand jury report. Please read Andrew Seidel's article, "It's Time To Quit the Catholic Church." Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
31-8-2018 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 42 seconden
OA204: The Perjury Trap (w/guest Randall Eliason)
Today's episode welcomes back one of our favorite guest experts, former prosecutor and current law professor Randall Eliason of the Sidebars blog, who will help us break down what exactly a "perjury trap" is -- and whether Robert Mueller is laying one for the President. Of course, when we have a guest this good, we also have to take advantage of his expertise in a couple of other areas. So we begin by checking in on the news of the day: Mueller has already reportedly offered immunity to David Pecker, the CEO of the National Inquirer, whom we discussed at great length on Episode 203 in connection with the Cohen plea. After that, we delve into Rudy Giuliani's contention that Mueller is laying a "perjury trap" for the President. Is that a thing? Is that what he's doing? Listen and find out! After that, we revisit the issue of reporters and confidential sources, where Professor Eliason has been a consistent voice opposing a federal privilege. Is that a view he still holds? There's only one way to know for sure! Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where our intrepid hero tries to inch closer to the coveted 60% mark with a question about torts. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Prof. Eliason first guested on the show way back in Episode 70. Here is the link to the NPR interview with Prof. Eliason discussed on the show. To read more of Prof. Eliason's work, click here to visit the Sidebars blog. Here is a transcript of Prof. Eliason's statement on reporter's privilege in the age of Trump. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
28-8-2018 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 39 seconden
OA203: Paul Manafort Convicted, Michael Cohen Pleads
Today's extra-long, extra-early Rapid Response episode tackles the two biggest stories in the news right now: Paul Manafort's conviction, and Michael Cohen's plea deal. We tell you exactly what these two big stories actually mean. We begin with Paul Manafort. What did the jury decide? Why did they fail to reach a verdict on 10 counts? What were those counts? How long is Paulie M going to stay in prison and what's next? And, most importantly: what does this mean for Yodel Mountain? How likely is Paulie M to flip on Donald Trump? We answer all of these questions and more! After that, we turn to everyone's favorite weasel, Michael "I Would Take A Bullet For Donald Trump" Cohen, who... has not taken a bullet for Donald Trump but has in fact pled guilty to eight separate crimes. What are they, what does it mean, and what comes next? Listen and find out! And if all that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #90 involving foreseeability, cross-motions for summary judgment, and tortious conduct. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You'll want to start with the Manafort indictment, and you can also read the Manafort verdict. Of the eight guilty counts, Manafort was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and 31 U.S.C. § 5322. We first discussed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines back in Episode 162; you can check out the full manual (long!) and also the FSG Sentencing table to figure out how long Paulie M is going away. And don't forget Manafort still has another trial pending in DC! We gave you a primer on that back in Episode 194, and you can check out the pending indictment in that case. If Paulie M flips, it will be to take advantage of Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Of course, we first covered how Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius back in Episode 154, and then the Karen McDougal story in Episode 158. Here's Cohen's plea deal; here are the conditions of his release; and here's the article quoting his allocution. Sneak preview of the bonus episode: here's the DOJ manual on prosecuting campaign finance violations that proves Alan Dershowitz is lying. Again. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
23-8-2018 • 1 uur, 28 minuten, 37 seconden
OA202: Roundup (With Special Guest the SciBabe!)
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent $289 million dollar verdict handed down by a California state jury for a man who alleges that the herbicide Roundup (TM) gave him cancer. First, we break down the facts of the lawsuit. Then, we have on special guest Yvette d'Entremont -- a.k.a. the SciBabe -- to break down the science behind glyphosate (the active chemical in Roundup). After that, it's time for everyone's favorite Thomas (& Yvette) Take the Bar Exam, where our dynamic duo attempts to get it right when it comes to the proper measure of damages for breach of contract. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links If you'd like to read some of the original court documents, here's the Roundup complaint, the Roundup motion to strike; and finally, here's the Roundup verdict. In the legal analysis, we discussed Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). And, of course, you should check out the SciBabe's website. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
21-8-2018 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 22 seconden
OA201: Follow Up Friday!
Today's Rapid Response Friday is actually a Follow Up Friday! We revisit four stories from recent episodes and go into more depth on each one, particularly in light of recent developments. We begin with our most recent story regarding reporter's privilege in Episode 200. What's the other side of the argument? Find out why friend of the show Randall Eliason thinks that reporter's ought not to have the right to keep their sources confidential! After that, we move back one more episode to Episode 199 and tackle some important listener questions about asbestos. Along the way, we discuss the difference between strict liability and negligence and delve into theories of market share liability. Our main segment covers the unsurprising fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news. What does this mean? How has the Supreme Court's decision changed the landscape for religious exemptions to laws? Listen and find out! After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain and check in with the conclusion of the Manafort trial. Phew! And if all that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas (and Yvette) Take The Bar Exam #89 involving the appropriate damages for breach of contract. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We discussed reporter's privilege in Episode 200; for the other side, check out this 2007 article by Randall Eliason on the BALCO scandal or this law review article in the American University Law Review. Of course, we discussed asbestos in Episode 199, but we first broke down the law of negligence way back in Episode 29. We cite to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and Sindell v. Abbott Labs, 607 P.2d 924 (1980). Click here to read the new Masterpiece Cakeshop complaint. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
17-8-2018 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 35 seconden
OA200: Reporters and Confidential Sources
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the legal protections reporters have (and don't have) to keep their sources confidential. We begin, however, with an update on how "Elections Have Consequences," this time, looking at the state of the House of Representatives in light of last week's special election in OH-12. After that, we dive deeply into reporter privilege, beginning with a discussion of the Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hayes and continuing through to the recently-proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2017. Next, the guys break down the Electronic Frontier Foundation's take on the 3-D guns. Do Andrew and Thomas change their minds? Listen and find out! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #88 about waiver and/or modification of contract. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on The Thinking Atheist podcast with Seth Andrews. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Some political links: click here to read The Hill's report on Trump claiming that he was "5-for-5," and here to check out the Cook Political Report's revisions to House races in light of the Balderson-O'Connor race in OH-12, Click here to read the Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), and here to read the recently-proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2017. We discussed 3-D guns in Episode 197, and you can read the EFF's take here. The EFF's primary case is Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, 814 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1987). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
14-8-2018 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 58 seconden
OA199: Asbestos??!? (Or: Why Is This Man Smiling?)
Note: the SaneBox url in this episode is incorrect. Please go to https://www.sanebox.com/opening to take advantage of a great deal on their product! Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down everything you need to know regarding the Trump EPA's recent rules change regarding asbestos. Is it as ominous as it sounds? (Yes.) We begin, however, with the oddest OA segment of all time: Devin Nunes was right! What was he right about, and what's a Michael Kinsley gaffe? You'll just have to listen and find out! After that, in a bonus segment, the guys break down the recent indictment of Chris Collins (R-NY-27) for insider trading. The main segment breaks down the EPA's Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) regarding asbestos and help you evaluate the competing claims being lobbed back and forth. Did the Trump Administration open up the use of asbestos in household products? Or did they make it harder to use asbestos as the EPA claims? We give you a definitive answer. After that, Andrew partially answers a listener question in light of Rick Gates's testimony in the Manafort trial while teasing that the rest will get answered sometime soon. And if that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #88 involving a contract, waiver and modification, and subsequent assignment to another party. Phew! If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on The Thinking Atheist podcast with Seth Andrews. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's a link to the NBC story on the Devin Nunes tape; and here's a link to one in the Washington Post; they're both delightful. This is the Collins indictment, and this is the text of 17 CFR 240.10b-5. The TSCA is 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Here's the letter that the ACC wrote to the EPA back in August of 2016 arguing that they should be able to use asbestos. For an in-depth critique of the Trump EPA's evaluative process, you can check out the annotated source documents and the summary article in the New York Times. Here's the text of the new EPA SNUR, and here's the (laughable) EPA dissembling as to what it means. Finally, here's the report on Rick Gates's cross-examination over his affairs. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
10-8-2018 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 21 seconden
OA198: What Is Alan Dershowitz Thinking?
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at Donald Trump's favorite "liberal," Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as seen through the eyes of one of his former students. We begin, however, with an update from the Paul Manafort trial, taking a look at the prosecution's strategy, witness list, and some preliminary rulings by Judge Ellis. After that, we dive very deeply into what looks like a very weird phenomenon: why is Alan Dershowitz carrying water for a President whom he ostensibly opposes? Why is he saying things that are demonstrably and indefensibly untrue about the law? Andrew has a theory. Mostly, though, he has stories and research... but they lead to a theory (we promise)! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding constitutional law and a state vs. the federal Confrontation Clause. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the article in The Hill indicating that the prosecution would, in fact, call Rick Gates; earlier, friend of the show Randall Eliason gave a bunch of reasons why they might not. Oh, and Eliason also has you covered as to why 'collusion' is, in fact, a crime. This is the laughable Fox News report on how Judge Ellis hates the prosecution; for a dose of reality, you might want to check out this other article in The Hill about how Judge Ellis chastised both sides's lawyers. If you missed it, this is our Episode 107 where we tackled Serial. Here's the PBS retrospective on Dershowitz and the OJ trial. Our Dershowitz story on 'testilying' begins with Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and the origins of the exclusionary rule; Dershowitz coined the term 'testilying' in this New York Times article from 1994. Testilying is, of course, a consistent problem today (see A, B) -- but Dershowitz hasn't spoken about it since 1998 (and even then, in an entirely different context). Instead, he attacked Baltimore's decision to indict the police in the Freddie Gray case in 2015. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of the legal wrangling regarding the Trump Administration's secret settlement with a self-described "crypto-anarchist" who uploaded material that allows anyone with access to a 3-D printer to make their own plastic, undetectable, untraceable firearm. We begin, however, with a listener who's considering coming over to the "dark side" and wants an honest answer about getting electoral help from overseas. What if the Irish want to help elect Liz Warren in 2020? Listen and find out! The main segment breaks down the "Defense Distributed" settlement and subsequent litigation -- and along the way you'll learn about Cold War arms sales, the Export Control Act, F-15s, Richard Nixon, and... well, let's just say there's a lot on the table! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding a state supreme court ruling over whether witnesses must face their accusers. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We most recently discussed election law and the relevant statute, 52 U.S.C. § 30121, back in Episode 116 with Beth Kingsley. The seminal Foreign Affairs (1982) article referenced by Andrew is here; and you can also verify the current arms sales numbers from this report in Newsweek. This is the confidential Trump administration's settlement with Defense Distributed; here is the Complaint filed by 8 states, along with the opposition brief filed by Wilson as well as the one filed by the Government. Ultimately, the Court granted the TRO. You can read the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq., and the implementing regulations at 22 C.F.R. § 125.4(b). The Pentagon Papers case is more formally known as New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971). Here's a Harvard Law Review article summarizing Wilson's loss at the 5th Circuit. Finally, check out the author note for (but please do not buy!) the Anarchist Cookbook, for sale on Amazon. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
3-8-2018 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 38 seconden
OA196: Voting and Sore Losers
Today's episode tells you everything you need to know about voting, including in particular West Virginia's "Sore Loser" law and whether it applies to big fat racist criminal loser Don Blankenship... and, in turn, what that means for Joe Manchin's chances of holding on to his Senate seat in the 2018 midterms. Phew! We begin, however, with... *sigh*... Andrew Was Wrong. This time, an astute listener clarifies where Andrew elided over two different sections of the Voting Rights Act when discussing the Supreme Court's opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Oh, and we have more on McDonald's, too! After that, it's time to dig into West Virginia's "sore loser" law. What does this mean for the upcoming Senate elections? Listen and find out! Then, the guys tackle a very good listener question from listener Greg regarding freedom of the press, freedom of speech, limited public fora, and more. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 regarding the sale of an automobile and a slippery salesman. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to tune in to our live Q&A this Tuesday, 7/31, at 7 pm Eastern / 4 Pacific. And, of course, participate in the questions thread! We most recently discussed the Voting Rights Act and Shelby County v. Holder back in Episode 188. If you want to know more about big fat racist criminal loser Don Blankenship, heck, you could start with his Wikipedia page. He's not shy about being a big fat racist criminal. (He does not yet grasp that he's a loser, though.) We cited two provisions of the West Virginia Code: W. Va. Code §§ 3-5-7(d)(6) and 3-5-23. And just in case you've forgotten how conservative Patrick Morrisey is, here's the quote he gave to CBS news. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
31-7-2018 • 1 uur, 46 seconden
OA195: Lordy, There Are Tapes!
Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of a busy week's developments in the Trump Administration's trip up Yodel Mountain, including the surprising revelation that Michael Cohen has audio tapes of his conversations with Donald Trump. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a challenging listener question regarding legal ethics and summer associates that hearkens back to our last episode. The main segment tackles an entire week's worth of yodeling, including the Cohen tapes, the emoluments lawsuit, and the Manafort trial. Phew! After that, we check in with our buddy Andrew Seidel from the FFRF about a recent victory in the 9th Circuit regarding prayers at public school board meetings. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 involving the questionable sale of a used car. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to tune in to our live Q&A this Tuesday, 7/31, at 7 pm Eastern / 4 Pacific. And, of course, participate in the questions thread! Here's the Reuters report that there are 12 Cohen-Trump tapes; we've heard just part of the first one regarding Karen McDougal, whom we first discussed back in Episode 158. You can read the Emoluments ruling for yourself; we covered this most recently back in Episodes 160 and 162. For our original two-part interview with Seth Barrett Tillman, check out Episodes 35 and 36. Some documents from the Manafort trial: 2018.07.22 Yanukovich govt response; 2018.07.20 Yanukovich motion in limine; 2018.07.25 orders on motions in limine; and 2018.07.26 government jury response. And, of course, you should take a look at the government's Exhibit List. We discussed the "Bernie Sanders" lawsuit against the DNC back in Episode 106. Finally, for some good news, check out the 9th Circuit's opinion in FFRF v. Chino Valley Unified School District; we discussed Town of Greece v. Galloway in Episode 85. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
27-7-2018 • 1 uur, 25 minuten, 33 seconden
OA194: Paul Manafort is Going to Trial! (& McDonald's!)
Today's episode tells you everything you need to know before Paul Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, which begins Wednesday, July 25, 2018. Oh, and we break down the recent lawsuit against McDonald's to boot! We begin, however, with a very good listener question from "Judicial Noir" regarding ethics, science, and a summer internship! After that, it's time to discuss an actual lawsuit over actual cheese. Yes, there's a class action lawsuit against Thomas's favorite restaurant (McDonald's) -- and we're here to help you separate fact from fiction! Oh, and along the way, you might learn something about Microsoft, illegal tying arrangements, and antitrust law! Then, it's back to Yodel Mountain to explain in depth exactly what's going on with our buddy Paulie M, and what you can expect over the next two weeks. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #85 regarding real property. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances If you didn't see Andrew's live appearance on Left-Right Radio with Chuck Morse, you can check out the YouTube archive of it. And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Before we get to McDonald's, you'll need to read all about US v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (2001). While you're at it, you might as well brush up on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. After that, you can read the class action lawsuit against McDonald's regarding the Quarter Pounder and Double Quarter Pounder. Andrew first broke down Judge Ellis in Episode 172. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
24-7-2018 • 1 uur, 28 minuten, 20 seconden
OA193: This Is Worse Than Watergate - PLUS Mandalay Bay Suing Victims?
Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down the recent lawsuit filed by the Mandalay Bay casino regarding the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Is it true that the casino is suing the victims? What's that all about?? Listen and find out! Also, we check in with Yodel Mountain and figure out, once and for all, if this is really worse than Watergate. (Hint: yes.) We begin, however, with everybody's favorite segment, Andrew Was Wrong, in which we revisit the Supreme Court with a few corrections. The main segment tackles the Mandalay Bay lawsuit and explains the concept of a declaratory judgent as well as the 2002 SAFETY Act upon which Mandalay Bay is attempting to rely. Next, we return to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent Mueller indictments, Donald Trump's Treason Summit with Russia, and ingenue Mariia Butina. It's as salacious as OA ever gets! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #85 involving (ugh) real property. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances If you didn't see Andrew's live appearance on Left-Right Radio with Chuck Morse, you can check out the YouTube archive of it. And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the link to the 2011 Ethics Report authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. Here's the Above The Law article we mentioned at the start of the main segment. We've uploaded a copy of the MGM/Mandalay Bay lawsuit so you can read it for yourself. The SAFETY Act can be found at 6 U.S.C. § 441 et seq., and the implementing regulations are at 6 CFR § 25.7. We discussed the Senate Intelligence Committee's report in Episode 190. Here's the link to the Mother Jones article about Butina documenting the claims made in the C segment. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
20-7-2018 • 1 uur, 30 minuten, 47 seconden
OA192: Capital Punishment, the Eighth Amendment &... Obergefell?
Today's episode takes an in-depth historical look at the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" and what that might mean for the future of Obergefell v. Hodges in the next Supreme Court. What does capital punishment have to do with gay marriage? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a discussion of the District Court's refusal to modify the Flores settlement we discussed in Episode 184. Find out what the court thinks of Trump's Executive Order to "keep families together" at the border... by indefinitely detaining minors in violation of the law. After that, it's time for a double-length dive into the history of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and in particular, the Supreme Court's decision outlawing capital punishment in 1972 (Furman v. Georgia) and then reversing itself just four years later (Gregg v. Georgia). Is this a blueprint for what the next SCOTUS will do? Listen and find out! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #84 regarding spousal privilege. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances By the time you download this, Andrew will have been a guest discussing Judge Kavanaugh with conservative talk show host Chuck Morse. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the President's Executive Order regarding family separation in Episode 184; and you can click hear to read the District Court's Order refusing to modify the Flores settlement. The first case we discussed was Pavan v. Smith, 137 S.Ct. 2075 (2017), in which Roberts refused to sign on with the hard-right dissent. Our two main cases we broke down were Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) and Gregg v. Georgia, 482 U.S. 153 (1976). Finally, we strongly recommend reading Justice Brennan's 1986 Oliver Wendell Holmes lecture in which he explains his view of the Eighth Amendment. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
17-7-2018 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 26 seconden
OA191: Fact and Fiction About Brett Kavanaugh
Today's Rapid Response Friday does not take a victory lap about our successful prediction that Brett Kavanaugh would be Donald Trump's next nominee to the Supreme Court (but seriously, we called that right, y'all.) Instead, Andrew and Thomas break down some of the current stories surrounding Kavanaugh to separate fact from fiction and try and articulate the best mainstream case against confirming Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In the pre-show, we give a shout-out to everyone who made the Opening Arguments Wiki possible -- go check it out! It's amazing! After that, Andrew Was Wrong returns with a clarification from Episode 187 where Andrew misspoke. And also, the guys have a slight laugh at Andrew's inability to pronounce locations of things. The main segment tackles a bunch of current stories surrounding Judge Kavanaugh, including: (1) the allegation that Judge Kavanaugh has concluded that sitting Presidents can't be indicted; (2) the Yale open letter opposing his nomination; (3) a truly stupid article in The Hill arguing for a lawsuit to block Kavanaugh; (4) the potential conflict of interest with Kennedy's retirement; and (5) the notion of "packing the Court" in 2020. Phew! Next, Andrew gives us an eight-second sneak peek at a court's refusal to permit the Trump administration to modify the Flores settlement and why that's good news. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 involving spousal privilege. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest co-host on Episode 75 of the Skepticrat podcast; go check it out! Also, Andrew will be discussing Judge Kavanaugh with conservative talk show host Chuck Morse. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For starters, here is the Tweet from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez we criticized, along with the pretty funny humor piece from Andy Borowitz. You should definitely read Kavanaugh's 2009 Law Review article “Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond” in the Minnesota Law Review. This is the Yale Open letter. This is the dreadful Ken Levy article in The Hill that Andrew debunks. These are the actual Senate Rules, and remember that we broke down the "nuclear option" way back in Episode 59. On Anthony Kennedy's negotations, check out Rule 3(C)(1) of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which we previously discussed in Episode 129. As homework for next week, read the Court's order denying the Trump Administration's request to modify the Flores settlement, which we first covered in Episode 184. Finally, NEVER ENDING FAME AND FORTUNE goes to:Paul Duggan, Zach Aletheia, Eric Brewer, Teresa Gomez, Andrew Hamilton, Robin Hofmann, and Beverly Karpinski-Theunis for creating the OA Wiki! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at [email protected]
13-7-2018 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 59 seconden
OA190: Good News, Everyone! (On Abortion Rights & More)
Today's episode -- at long last -- brings us some good news from two rather unlikely sources: first, from the state of Iowa (regarding abortion rights), and second, from the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. You won't believe your ears! We begin, however, with a segment that's good news for everyone except Andrew: yes, it's the ever-popular Andrew Was Wrong. This time, Andrew owns up to a serious mistake regarding the fingerprinting regulations at the border, and an almost-as-serious mistake regarding the bustling metropolis of Olathe, Kansas. In the main segment, Andrew breaks down Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, a recent state supreme court opinion invalidating a 3-day waiting period (with other onerous restrictions on abortion) that provides optimism and a way forward for progressives as we prepare for decades of a right-wing federal judiciary. Find out how states can protect reproductive freedom and abortion rights separate from the U.S. Supreme Court. After that, it's time for a return trip to Yodel Mountain, where we check in on the Senate Intelligence Committee's endorsement of the joint agency report from January 2017 concluding that the Russian government deliberately interfered in the US elections with a strong preference for Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 regarding the tort of assault and an unloaded firearm. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest co-host on Episode 75 of the Skepticrat podcast; go check it out! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds opinion. For future activism, click this link to determine whether your state has elected or appointed state supreme court judges. The Intelligence Community Assessment is here; you can also read the Senate Intelligence Committee's report validating that assessment here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
10-7-2018 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 8 seconden
OA189: Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Today's Rapid Response Friday gives you a sneak preview of what to expect from the person we predict will become Donald Trump's next nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. We discuss: Why it's likely to be Kavanaugh and not any of the other rumored contenders, especially flavor-of-the-minute Amy Coney Barrett Kavanaugh's view of the First Amendment's establishment clause and the future of Lemon v. Kurtzman Kavanaugh's views on abortion How Kavanaugh differs (and how he doesn't!) from Neil Gorsuch when it comes to Chevron deference The weird conservative hit squad out to get Kavanaugh And much, much more! After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 involving assault with an unloaded gun. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Thomas was just a guest on Episode 421 of the Cognitive Dissonance Podcast. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links If you want a head start on Tuesday's show, check out the just-released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report. This is the Notre Dame speech/law review article in which Kavanaugh lays out his judicial philosophy and essentially auditions for the Supreme Court. We discussed the following cases: Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), Priests for Life v. Department of Health & Human Services, 808 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc), Garza v. Hargan, 874 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (en banc), United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (D.C. Cir., 2017) (en banc), PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (2018) (en banc), Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir 2011), and Heller v. D.C., 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)! Right-wing weirdo roundups: Here's the National Review endorsement of Kavanaugh; this is the truly bizarre Jacobs piece in The Federalist; and here is the Federalist Society's own rebuttal. Finally, a preemptive Andrew Was Wrong: Here's Raymond Kethledge's University of Michigan address on how bad Chevron deference is. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
6-7-2018 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 32 seconden
OA188: Three Cases About Voting Rights
Today's episode takes a look at three recent decisions from this Supreme Court and how each one will affect voting in the midterm elections: Husted v. Randolph Institute, Abbott v. Perez, and (surprisingly) Janus v. AFSCME. First, though, we begin by addressing a conspiracy theory that's making the rounds suggesting some nefarious relationship between Anthony Kennedy's son, Justin, and Donald Trump. Does this story hold water? Listen and find out! Then, we break down each of the three cases: Husted, involving Ohio's efforts to purge voters from its rolls; Abbott, involving Texas's efforts to racially gerrymander Congressional districts; and Janus, which will result in drastically weaker public sector unions. What does this mean for the midterms? (Hint: it's not good.) Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 regarding the search and seizure of heroin from plain sight. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Thomas was just a guest on Episode 421 of the Cognitive Dissonance Podcast. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links If you missed last year's Fourth of July Spectacular, that was Episode 83. You can read the Liptak & Haberman New York Times article about Trump and Kennedy by clicking here. The Ohio case is Husted v. Randolph Institute, and the Texas cdase is Abbott v. Perez. Before you read Janus v. AFSCME, you may want to check out our extensive coverage of the case back in Episode 150. The statute the 5-4 majority blatantly ignores in Abbott is 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Finally, this is the research Andrew mentioned regarding the correlation between right-to-work states and lower voter turnout and lower Democratic share of the vote. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
3-7-2018 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 5 seconden
OA187: Lowering the Lukumi Bar?
Today's Bonus Episode asks if there's a way to make sense of the Supreme Court's Lukumi jurisprudence in light of this week's rulings in Trump v. Hawaii (the Travel Ban), Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the somewhat surprising decision to remand the Arlene's Flowers case back to the state of Washington. We begin, however, by checking in with the Southern District of New York's Order approving the Taint Team's review of documents seized from Michael Cohen's offices by the Department of Justice. How many documents did the Team recommend the Court withhold as privileged? The answer may surprise you! After that, we revisit the thesis advanced by Andrew Seidel in Episode 180 that the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop might result in a more vigorous application of its 1993 decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Next, we break down the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, in which the Court struck down a California law regulating so-called "crisis pregnancy centers." After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 involving the legality of a search for heroin. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out the Southern District of New York's Order regarding Cohen's meager haul of privileged documents. Andrew Seidel set forth his "Lukumi bar" thesis in Episode 180; you can read Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) for yourself and then compare it with both Trump v. Hawaii and Masterpiece Cakeshop. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey at length in a two-part series: Episode 27 and Episode 28; you might want to compare the statute approved in that case with the one struck down by the Court in NIFLA v. Becerra. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
30-6-2018 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 33 seconden
OA186: Anthony Kennedy & the Future of the Supreme Court
Today's Rapid Response Friday comes after a busy week at the Supreme Court, capped off by the (somewhat) surprising announcement that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy intends to retire as of July 31, 2018. We break down everything about this news, including: What the Trump administration is likely to do next Who President Trump might nominate to fill Kennedy's spot How the Democrats should respond What the next Supreme Court might look like How all of this plays in with the 2018 midterms and 2020 Presidential election And much, much more! We're also going to bring you a bonus episode to make sure you're fully informed as to all the other goings-on in the law this week! After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 involving the legality of a search for heroin. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We broke down the "nuclear option" in Episode 59. Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would not recess for the summer on June 5. Here are the (generally reliable) Cook Political Report ratings of the 2018 Senate races. This is the Mother Jones article on Anthony Kennedy's 2017-2018 votes. This is the list of Trump's 25 potential Supreme Court nominees. These are the resources discussed in the future segment, including the When Every Vote Counts law review article, the Slate article on 5-4 splits, and the SCOTUSBlog data regarding the 2017-2018 term. Finally, if you're feeling nostalgic, you might want to reread Obergefell v. Hodges while it's still good law. An d if you're feeling super optimistic, you can even check out the "Above the Law" blog post arguing that it will survive Kennedy's departure (it won't). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
29-6-2018 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 56 seconden
OA185: Gerrymandering & Other Good (?) News
Today's episode tries to put a positive spin on some recent developments, including the Supreme Court's gerrymandering decisions, the Department of Justice OIG report on the 2016 election, and the triumphant return of Everyone's Favorite Segment (TM): "Are You A Cop?" We begin with the Office of the Inspector General's 2016 Election Final Report, which we modestly point out validates literally everything we said in one of our favorite Episodes, OA 13, "Hillary Clinton's Damned Emails." There's so much more to learn, so you'll want to listen up! After that, we tackle the main segment, looking for some good news out of the Supreme Court's recent "decisions" on gerrymandering in Gill v. Whitford (Wisconsin) and Benisek v. Lamone (Maryland). These 9-0 decisions are widely viewed as having punted on gerrymandering; is that right, and if so, what does the future hold? After that, we tackle a trope that "everyone knows" in fan-favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" This week, it's that "everyone knows" cops can't have sex with people in their custody, right? RIGHT? Well, thanks to one Democratic legislator in a deep red state, it's now true in Kansas, at least. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #81 regarding a law designed to target two college professors who crafted campus hate speech codes. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Hillary Clinton's emails and the Comey investigation way back in Episode 13, and if you haven't listened, you should check it out! Then, compare what we said then to the just-released Office of the Inspector General's 2016 Election Final Report. Our explainer on Gerrymandering is Episode 54; we then talk about the Wisconsin case in Episode 80 and the Maryland case in Episode 148. Of course, you can (and should!) read the Supreme Court's recent decisions on gerrymandering in Gill v. Whitford (Wisconsin) and Benisek v. Lamone (Maryland). Here is the text of Kansas HB2621, which amends KSA Supp. 21-5512(a), defining "unlawful sexual relations." A "Severity Level 5 Person felony" is subject to 50-55 months in prison as per the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
26-6-2018 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 20 seconden
OA184: Families at the Border
Today's Rapid Response Friday helps separate fact from fiction when it comes to the heartwrenching issue of families being separated at the border. Is the Trump administration to blame? Did the recent Executive Order fix the problem? Listen and find out. First, though, we bring back (almost) everyone's favorite segment: Andrew Was Wrong! Specifically, Andrew was wrong when he predicted back in Episode 83 that Maajid Nawaz didn't have much of a defamation case against the Southern Poverty Law center, and in Episode 84 that he didn't have much leverage, either. Well, both of those predictions looked foolish now that the SPLC has agreed to pay Nawaz $3,375,000 and issue an unconditional apology. In the main segment, we break down Trump's EO regarding separating families at the border and requesting a modification to the Flores v. Reno settlement. It's bad. And if it weren't bad enough, we also discuss the administration's change in asylum policy. After that, we discuss the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Pereira v. Sessions. Surely that can't be bad news, too? (Don't call us Shirley.) Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #81 involving the constitutionality of a state legislature retaliating against two professors for pushing campus speech codes. Have we piqued your interest yet? Listen and find out! And if you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself. You can watch the video on YouTube. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Maajid Nawaz's legal threats in Episode 83 and Episode 84. You can read the final Settlement Agreement for yourself as well as check out the SPLC's apology to Nawaz. Click here to read the Snopes article conclusively debunking the political claim that this policy was put into place "by Democrats." You can read Trump's recent Executive Order and also check out the original 1997 Flores v. Reno settlement. The operative laws discussed during the main segment were: 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (“improper entry by alien”); and, of course, 18 U.S.C. § 46 (“transportation of water hyacinths”). You can also read the Attorney General's Interim Decision #3929 on refugees for yourself. As promised, this is the full list of Class B federal misdemeanors. We also discussed this Washington Post article on refugees being turned away at the border. This is the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Pereira v. Sessions. Finally, a secret Yodel for you folks who read the show notes: here's the link to the news that Michael Cohen's fired his old lawyers (McDermott, Will & Emery) and hired a new one (Guy Petrillo). What does this mean? Only time will tell. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
22-6-2018 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 5 seconden
OA183: Dissenting on the Supreme Court
**Today's episode is brought to you by Framebridge! To custom frame your favorite things, go to framebridge.com promo code: OA** Today's episode takes a deep dive into two recent 8-1 decisions by the Supreme Court: Collins v. Virginia and Sveen v. Melin. What makes a decision nearly unanimous, and what causes that lone Justice to dissent? Listen and find out! Our first 8-1 case involves two unique aspects of the 4th Amendment: the "curtilage" exception and the "automobile" exception. Which one takes precedence, why, and which Supreme Court justice vehemently disagreed? Find out if you agree with Thomas -- and whether the law is "a ass." (Seriously!) Our second 8-1 case is Sveen v. Melin, which involves whether the state of Missouri can legislate certain presumptions regarding "governing instruments." It's the Contracts Clause! Seem arcane? It won't after you listen to our breakdown! After that, we answer a fun listener question about how a law firm makes someone a partner in light of our assessment of the Eagan Avenatti law firm in Episode 181. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #80 regarding negligence per se and an impromptu ice rink. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself. You can watch the video on YouTube. And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Collins v. Virginia, and here to check out Sveen v. Melin. The other decision Andrew referred to was the landmark case of Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
19-6-2018 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 3 seconden
OA182: Paul Manafort is Going to Prison
**Today's episode is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus! Go to thegreatcoursesplus.com/OA to start your free month!** Today's Rapid Response Friday spends a lot of time on Yodel Mountain, and in particular evaluating whether Paul Manafort is headed to prison for violating the terms of his pre-trial release as per 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A). You'll know soon enough, but we're predicting that Paulie M is headed to prison. Of course, no trip to Yodel Mountain has just a single stop, so we also discuss the late-breaking New York state lawsuit filed against Donald Trump, his kids, and the Trump Foundation; the status of the media's efforts to unseal the Mueller documents, and much, much more! After that lengthy trip to Yodel Mountain, we also update you on the recent court decision upholding the AT&T / Time Warner merger first discussed in Episode 128. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #80 which asks how a court would rule in a convoluted case involving car-washing, sudden deep freezes, and incompetent trial attorneys. Have we piqued your interest yet? Listen and find out! And if you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself. You can watch the video on YouTube. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the just-filed New York state lawsuit against Donald Trump, his kids, and the Trump Foundation. Here's the government's motion to revoke Paul Manafort's pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A) ; here's the superseding indictment; and here's Manafort's response to the government's motion. Witness tampering is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1512. You can read the primary case relied upon by Manafort's lawyers, U.S. v. Edlind, 887 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2018) for yourself. A (federal) criminal motion for a "bill of particulars" is governed by Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. You can also check out Judge Jackson's Order denying Manafort's Motion for Bill of Particulars, We first discussed the press's motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents in Episode 168; now you can read the Media Coalition Response brief to the government and Manafort's separate objections to unsealing the documents. We broke down the AT&T/Time Warner merger in Episode 128, and you can read Judge Leon's Order Approving the Merger. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
15-6-2018 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 10 seconden
OA181: Michael Avenatti is Never Going To Come On Our Show (#NotAllLawyers)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into allegations of attorney misconduct. We begin with following investigative reporting concerning the involuntary bankruptcy of the Eagan Avenatti firm, and discover some potentially disturbing facts about the lawyer who's currently outfoxing the bad guys at every turn, Michael Avenatti. After that, we discuss the Supreme Court's recent unanimous per curiam decision in Azar v. Garza, the tragic case of the young woman denied her constitutional right to an abortion and subjected to harassment and "crisis pregnancy center" anti-abortion counseling until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal stepped in. So... why did the Supreme Court just vacate that opinion? It (potentially) has to do with attorney misconduct. Oh, and this story also tells you everything you needed to know about price ceilings on underwear in the 1940s. (Really!) Then, we examine the biggest example of attorney misconduct at the moment -- Donald Trump's ever-fluctuating team of lawyers defending the indefensible. Specifically, we take a look at the recently-leaked Dowd memorandum and its central claim that the President cannot obstruct justice with otherwise-legal behavior. (That's false.) Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #79 regarding the conveyance of property to a church with conditions attached. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances If you can't get enough of our analysis of the Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion, you can get even more on Episode 142 of Serious Inquiries Only (with more Andrew Seidel) and Episode 277 of The Scathing Atheist (with way more profanity). And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the investigative piece on the Eagan Avenatti bankruptcy published by the Los Angeles Times. We last discussed Garza v. Hargan on Episode 165. You can read the Supreme Court's opinion (now captioned Azar v. Garza) here. And if you want to read United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 304 U.S. 36 (1950), you can do that too! Finally, if you can stomach it, here's a link to the Dowd memo. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
12-6-2018 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 25 seconden
OA180: Masterpiece Cakeshop
Join us for an early Rapid Response Friday, in which we break down the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. To tackle a topic this big, we needed a little extra help, so we brought back our favorite guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. But that's not all! We recorded so much information that we decided to do a crossover episode with Serious Inquiries Only, so you can have over two hours of Andrew-on-Andrew (and Thomas!) action. We begin, however, on Yodel Mountain, with two pieces of news arising out of Paul Manafort's criminal trial. Is Paulie M going to jail? Did he engage in illegal witness tampering? Did he back up his encrypted WhatsApp messages on an unencrypted iCloud? Listen and find out! We also delve into Manafort's response to the press's motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents first discussed in Episode 168. And, as long as we're yodeling, we might as well catch up on what's going on in the Summer Zervos lawsuit first discussed in Episode 176. After that, it's time to figure out exactly what's going on in Masterpiece Cakeshop. Is this a narrow decision? Is it a win for anti-LGBTQ forces? Is it a nothing-burger? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #79 about the real property conveyance to a church. Yes, it's more 13th-Century Saxony law! And if you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew and Andrew continued to talk Masterpiece Cakeshop on Serious Inquiries Only, and Andrew was a guest talking the same thing on Episode 177 of The Scathing Atheist. Show Notes & Links Here's the government's motion to revoke Paul Manafort's pretrial release. Witness tampering is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1512. We first discussed the press's motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents in Episode 168, and the Summer Zervos lawsuit back in Episode 176. We've uploaded Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission so you can read it for yourself. If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his FIVE previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111, Episode 131, and most recently, Episode 171. Finally, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
7-6-2018 • 1 uur, 27 minuten, 47 seconden
OA179: Abortion and Plea Bargaining
Today's episode takes a deep dive into two developments concerning the right to an abortion in the U.S., followed by our continuing discussion on plea bargaining with listener comments from prosecutors, public defenders, the U.S. judiciary, and even international listeners. You won't want to miss it! We begin with an in-depth examination of the so-called "gag rule" just proposed by Trump's Department of Health and Human Services. Is it really a gag rule? (Yes.) After that, we look into the Supreme Court's recent decision not to grant certiorari in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, allowing an 8th Circuit decision to stand that, in turn, denied a preliminary injunction blocking a restrictive Arkansas abortion law, HB1394. Is this a bad sign? (Yes.) After that, we return to the subject of plea bargaining that's been a hot topic in our inbox for weeks, capped off by the Iowa Supreme Court's discussion of the issue in Schmidt v. Iowa. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For context on the Trump HHS gag rule, you can read Title X, 42 USC § 300 et seq. Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, 864 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2017), denied a preliminary injunction, allowing HB1394 to take effect. You can read the cert petition here. If you're feeling good about Schmidt v. Iowa and need to be reminded that "actual innocence" is not a ground for federal habeas corpus relief, check out Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
5-6-2018 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 57 seconden
OA178: Trump and the NFL
Join us for yet another Rapid Response Friday, in which we continue to evaluate claims on the left challenging the legality of the NFL's policy regarding the national anthem, as well as discuss two items that are also of interest to Donald Trump. We begin with a listener question we didn't get to during our Q&A regarding the similarities and differences between the John Edwards affair and the Stormy Daniels affair. Is this the kind of thing that should give Trump comfort? (Hint: no.) Oh, and you might also learn something about an "Allen charge" if you follow us all the way down all our rabbit trails! After that, we break down the "state action doctrine" while considering some liberal arguments making the rounds ostensibly challenging the legality or constitutionality of the NFL's new rules. Andrew still isn't buying it! Then, we trek back to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent developments in Michael Cohen's case in the Southern District of New York. Was Andrew... wrong? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding. It's more interesting than it sounds, we promise! If you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links In the pre-show, we (don't) discuss, among other things, the Trump administration's breaking decisions on steel tariffs; for analysis, we refer you to our coverage of this issue back in Episode 162. This is the text of the 6-count John Edwards indictment, and we also quoted from the coverage of the acquittal by ABC News. We covered the "Paid Patriotism in the NFL" report in Episode 108; you can also read that report directly by clicking here. Oh, and this is the Mike Florio PFT article, if you want to read more about how the NFL is in Jerry Jones's pocket. If you like semi-old-timey Supreme Court decisions, you should definitely read Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) about First Amendment rights in a company town. Once you've gotten through that, you can tackle Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961) on the entanglement doctrine. This is the Ben Sachs Vox article we discussed. Your guide to Yodel Mountain includes this awesome NYT flowchart as well as this solid narrative article in Politico. Finally, this is the full text of Avenatti's withdrawal of his pro hac vice motion. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
1-6-2018 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 40 seconden
OA177: Neil Gorsuch's Epic Decision & the NFL (feat. Chris Kristofco)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the recent Supreme Court decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a Gorsuch opinion that is exactly what we told you to expect back when he was nominated to the Court. Oh, and we also tackle the latest policy issued by the NFL with our four-time guest, Chris Kristofco. And that's where we begin: with a detailed breakdown of the legal implications of the NFL's just-announced policy prohibiting on-field peaceful protests during the national anthem. You won't want to miss it! During the main segment, we break down the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the use of mandatory arbitration clauses that waive the right to class action lawsuits in take-it-or-leave-it contracts of adhesion. But -- because this is a Gorsuch opinion -- you won't be surprised to learn that it's so very much worse than you thought. After that, we move into a listener comment on plea bargaining that foreshadows an upcoming episode.... Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #77 about the constitutional requirements (if any) to a 12-person jury and/or a unanimous one. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70. Go check it out! Show Notes & Links If you liked Chris and want to hear more, you can check out his excellent sportsball podcast, Titletown Sound Off, or you can check out his previous appearances on the show: Episode 6 (on the NFL), Episode 32 (on Phil Ivey's gambling), and Episode 68 (on Aaron Hernandez). Also, our guest Chris Kluwe predicted something like this back in Episode 115. Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. If you want to check out the data cited in Ginsburg's dissent; that's here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
29-5-2018 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 43 seconden
OA 176: It's Summer (Zervos) Time!
It's time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down whether Donald Trump has to respond to the Summer Zervos defamation lawsuit. (Hint: yes) We begin, however, with a potential Stormy Setback. What's the deal with press reports of a $10 million judgment entered against Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti? Could it jeopardize the pending litigation? Listen and find out! After that, we break down the recent federal district court opinion in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, which we covered when the case was first filed way back in Episode 77. Are Donald Trump's Tweets really a "protected forum" to which the First Amendment applies? Listen and find out! Then, we break down exactly how duplicitious Donald Trump's personal lawyer has been regarding the Summer Zervos lawsuit. It's exactly as much as you'd expect! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #77 regarding the constitutional requirement to a trial by jury. If you'd like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70. Go check it out! Show Notes & Links We discussed Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice motion in Episode 174; you can also read the LA Times article about the bankruptcy judgment, as well as check out both the Avenatti involuntary bankruptcy petition and the Avenatti creditors list. We analyzed several cases, the most hilarious of which is Kohlmayer v. AMTRAK, 124 F.Supp.2d 877 (D.N.J. 2000). Trump's Tweets were first discussed in Episode 77, along with the Davison v. Loudon County decision. You should read the Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump decision. This is the Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), and if you want to read Marc Kasowitz's deliberately misleading statements yourself, you can do so here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
25-5-2018 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 42 seconden
OA175: Defending a Client In the Shadow of the Death Penalty (& So Much More!)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week: McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, and Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq. In both cases, we hope to show that these cases have two legitimate sides. We begin, of course, with sportsball. What is PASPA, why did the Court strike it down, does it make sense, and most importantly: when can you bet against the San Jose Sharks? In the main segment, we break down the difficult questions surrounding the representation of capital murder defendants. After that, we head back overseas with a really insightful listener comment that takes us deeper into the law of treaties. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #76 about present recollection refreshed. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links The first case we break down is Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq. After that, we turn to McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, distinguishing the Court's earlier decision in Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004). We discussed treaty obligations in Episode 173. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
22-5-2018 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 21 seconden
OA174: Is Michael Avenatti Fit To Practice Law In New York?
It's time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Michael Avenatti's response to the opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice in the Southern District of New York -- amongst many, many other issues! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Lived Through The 1980s segment (formerly: Andrew Was Wrong), that segues into an update on the Panmunjom Declaration discussed in Episode 173. After that, it's time to go yodeling, where we break down Paul Manafort's other criminal trial, Michael Avenatti's ethical responsibilities regarding SARs, Donald Trump's financial disclosures, and (sadly) much, much more. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #76 regarding the admissibility of witness testimony. If you'd like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here is the text of the Panmunjom Declaration we first discussed in Episode 173. You can read Judge Jackson's ruling denying Manafort's Motion to Dismiss, and also Avenatti's Response to Michael Cohen's Opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice. The primary case relied upon by Avenatti in his response is In re JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 799 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2015), which is directly on point. We've also uploaded a copy of Trump's 2018 Financial Disclosures, which admits the Cohen payment. Finally, we highly recommend Ronan Farrow's New Yorker reporting regarding the Cohen SARs. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
18-5-2018 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 41 seconden
OA173: The Foreign Policy Show - Korea, Iran, and... Ann Coulter?
Today's episode heads overseas to discuss foreign policy; specifically, the Trump administration's actions with respect to Iran and North and South Korea. Is there a common thread here? Listen and find out! First, though, we update you on the Young America Foundation lawsuit against the University of California at Berkeley regarding Ann Coulter and an (alleged) hidden Secret Evil Cabal Conspiracy to Silence Conservatives. After that, we crank up the time machine and go back... all the way back to World War II to discuss what happened on the Korean Peninsula that paved the way for the recent Panmunjom Declaration. If you've ever wanted Opening Arguments to go all Ken Burns, well, this is the show for you! Then, we take a look at the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015 -- or, as Trump calls it, the "terrible Iran deal." Is it a terrible deal? What are the legal ramifications? We've got you covered! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #75 about subsequent oral modifications to contract. Don't forget to listen and find out why Andrew would have gotten this question wrong! Also, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the "Ann Coulter" lawsuit during Episode 73; if you want to read the latest ruling, it's embedded in this article. Click here to read the Howard Levie law review article from the Akron Law Review, and here to read the final Armistice Agreement (drafted by Levie). This is the text of the original JCPOA; and click here to read the CFR's backgrounder on it that was referenced during the show. If you want the Washington Post's fact-checker article on Trump's statements about the JCPOA showing that virtually everything he's said is a lie, that's here. This is the link that contains the letter written by the Obama Administration to then-Rep. Mike Pompeo describing the JCPOA as a "political document." Finally, if you want to read the 1969 Vienna Convention, grab a tall beverage and curl up with it right here. The actual treaty begins on page 384. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
15-5-2018 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 16 seconden
OA172: Private Prisons, Judge Ellis & More
It's time for another SUPER-SIZED Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Judge Ellis's statements in the Paul Manafort criminal trial (amongst many, many other issues)! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew (well, mostly ABC and NBC) Was Wrong. After that, the guys discuss a recent 10th Circuit opinion regarding the treatment of detainees in private prisons. What does it mean for the future of class action litigation? Listen and find out! After that, it's back to Yodel Mountain, where we break down not only Judge Ellis, but all the developments in or connected to the Mueller investigation, including Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen's "follow the money" report. Phew! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #75 about a contract and a subsequent oral modification that Andrew admits he would have muffed. If you'd like to play along and show Andrew you're the better lawyer, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's the link to a Washington Times story covering the correction regarding Michael Cohen's supposed "wiretap" (that turned out to be a pen register). The case we discussed in the main segment was Menocal v. GEO Group (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2018). Click here to read the 2016 Obama directive on ending privatized prisons, or (if you're a masochist) here to read the 2017 Trump directive rescinding it. If you only read one thing from this show, please do read the transcript of the May 4 hearing before Judge Ellis. It's great. I love this guy. The opposition to Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice motion is here; it also contains the "Executive Summary" laying out Avenatti's "follow the money." If you prefer to see it in chart form, click here (H/T Washington Post). The TPM article suggesting that Avenatti must have had access to SARs is here. To understand bribery, we highly recommend this primer by Randall Eliason. Finally, please click here to check out Thomas's May 19 talk in New Orleans. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
11-5-2018 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 17 seconden
OA171: Andrew Seidel Joins the Five-Timers Club
Today’s episode welcomes back one of our favorite guests — and the show’s only five-time guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Together, Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas tackle a bunch of church and state separation issues. First, they break down Andrew Seidel’s recent success in convincing the New Jersey Supreme Court to strike down a grant program that spent taxpayer dollars rebuilding churches and saved the citizens of New Jersey more than a quarter of a billion dollars! Then, the gang does a deep dive into a pending law in Kansas that would permit adoption agencies within the state to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (or anything else that offended the organization's... wait for it... sincerely-held religious beliefs). Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Andrew!) Take The Bar Exam question #74 about the admissibility of evidence. Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was the recent guest masochist on Episode 141 of the God Awful Movies podcast, reviewing "Cries of the Unborn." Check it out! Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Morris County Opinion discussed during the "A" segment. And if you want to see the legislative notes from the Kansas adoption bill, you should click here. We broke down the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in Episode 105, and you can follow along with the guys by reading the transcript of the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral argument before the Supreme Court! If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his FOUR previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111, and most recently, Episode 131. Finally, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
8-5-2018 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 57 seconden
OA170: All Yodel, All the Time
Well, it's another Rapid Response Friday, and we're here with everything you need to know about Yodel Mountain, including: Breaking news regarding the wiretap of Michael Cohen's office several weeks before the search warrant issued and that the SDNY has at least one conversation between Cohen and Trump Rudy Giuliani's rather bizarre appearance on Hannity, during which he admitted that President Trump is DD and paid Michael Cohen back for the $130,000 in hush money paid to Stormy Daniels -- directly contradicting the President's own earlier statement Whether the repayment scheme alleged by Giuliani (a) makes sense and/or (b) constitutes money laundering The "leaked questions" regarding Mueller's efforts to interview Trump Trump's decision to replace Ty Cobb with Emmett Flood The House Freedom Caucus's efforts to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; and, of course Stormy Daniels's latest defamation lawsuit against President Trump Our tip to journalists -- the question you want to ask is "What 'information' does Stormy Daniels have under Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement?" Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and next week's guest Andrew Seidel) Take The Bar Exam #74 that's not about real property, but is instead about the rules of evidence and whether a particular line of questioning is permissible. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 141 of the God Awful Movies podcast, reviewing "Cries of the Unborn." Check it out! Show Notes & Links We first discussed how unhinged Rudy Giuliani is way back in Episode 13, "Hillary Clinton's Damned Emails" -- which is one of our all-time favorites. This is the not-to-be-missed Laura Ingraham reaction video to Giuliani's Hannity appearance, which led to this set of tweets from the President. The money-laundering statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1956. This is the New York Times article we mentioned that breaks down the political implications of the switch from Cobb to Flood, and here is the list of questions Mueller wants to ask Trump. Finally, this is the Stormy Daniels defamation complaint. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
4-5-2018 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 31 seconden
OA169: Wells Fargo Goes To Jail?
Today's episode discusses the recent fines levied against Wells Fargo in connection with two specific acts of egregious fraud against consumers. Is it enough? Is it proof that Trump (and Mick Mulvaney) intend rigorous defense of consumers at the CFPB? Listen and find out! First, we delve into a grab bag of items, beginning with a heartfelt apology and Andrew Was Wrong regarding trans language. Next, we deal with a couple of wacky legal cases, before settling in on a bevy of new gun control laws passed in Maryland. Phew! Then, we move into a discussion of Trump v. Hawaii, which was argued before the Supreme Court last week. What's the latest on the Travel Ban? After that, our "C" segment breaks down everything Wells Fargo. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #73 about lessees, assignees, and joint and several liability. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances As this show comes out, Andrew was the guest masochist on Episode 141 of God Awful Movies; check it out! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links From our grab bag: here is a link to the Kobach memo that's PROBABLY NOT WORTH ARGUING; this is the New York Post report on the hilarious Make America Great Again bar lawsuit; and this is the link to all the gun control bills passed in Maryland. We first discussed outgoing Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's cease-and-desist order against Wells Fargo back in Episode 146. The current enforcement action by the OCC can be read here. We first discussed Trump's (then only proposed) Muslim ban way back in Episode #16, when the conventional wisdom was that it was so unthinkably awful it might lead the Republican Party to replace him at the top of the ticket. Ah, good times. Since then, we've discussed the legality of the ban again (in Episode 39), the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-1 (in Episode 43), and, most recently, the status of OA-2 in Episode 114. In this episode, we cite to the Government's reply brief before the Supreme Court. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
1-5-2018 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 11 seconden
OA168: Michael Cohen Takes Five
In the main segment, we discuss the intersection between the Paul Manafort criminal trial and the public's right to know about the Mueller investigation. Oh, and ... isn't there a bill pending to protect Mueller? We break down that, too. But we're not done! After that we delve into all things Michael Cohen, including his efforts to stay the California civil suit and his less-than-likely efforts to stay out of criminal trouble in New York. If you love Stormy Daniels -- and who doesn't? -- you won't want to miss it. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #73 about landlord-tenant-friend relationships. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links From our grab bag: here is a link to the Kobach memo that's PROBABLY NOT WORTH ARGUING; this is the New York Post report on the hilarious Make America Great Again bar lawsuit; and this is the link to all the gun control bills passed in Maryland. Click here if you want to read the Comey memos. We first discussed the Manafort trial back in Episode 118; this is the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Manafort's Motion to Suppress, and here is the press motion to unseal portions of the Mueller investigation. Oh, and this is Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), discussed during the show. Here's the link to the Washington Post article reporting that Trump has conceded that Michael Cohen "represents me with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal." In this segment, we discuss Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441 (1972). Finally, you can click here to read the government's status report filed in Cohen's New York investigation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
27-4-2018 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 49 seconden
OA167: Neil Gorsuch, Secret Liberal?
Today's episode tackles the recent (and shocking) Supreme Court decision in which Neil Gorsuch voted with the Court's liberal justices to produce a very unusual 5-4 alignment. Is this a sign that Gorsuch isn't the right-wing hack we all thought he was? Listen and find out! (Hint: No.) After that, we break down the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., the first decision of its kind recognizing that discrimination on the basis of an individual who is transgender or transitioning violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After that, we answer a listener question about selecting a contingent fee attorney and discuss some of the actual pitfalls as well as misconceptions about those lawyers who take "no money down!" Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #72 about real property and the transfer of a deed. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first warned you about Neil Gorusch way back in Episode 40, and we're definitely not backing down now. If you want to check out his concurrence, you can click here to read the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya. And, as we discussed on the show, the should-have-been-straightforward holding of this case stems directly from the Court's prior opinion in Johnson v. United States. You can read the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., and for more coverage of Title VII, check out our discussion of Hively v. Ivy Tech from Episode 60, as well as our most recent update in Episode 152. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
24-4-2018 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 8 seconden
OA166: The Taint Team (& Also, Alex Jones)
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the attorney-client privilege issues relating to the FBI's search of the offices of Michael Cohen, alleged lawyer to Donald Trump and... Sean Hannity?!? First, we begin with a finishing move from one of our pro wrestler listeners, updating our story that we first covered in Episode 163. (Is it the Million Dollar Dream? Listen and find out!) In the main segment, we break down all that happened (and all that's yet to come!) in the ongoing legal case against Michael Cohen we first discussed in Episode 164. How strong is Cohen's argument that he's entitled to protect the privilege of his legal clients? After that, we take a look at three lawsuits against Alex Jones and InfoWars and start the discussion about what to do about blatantly false, politically-motivated conspiracy theories. Are defamation lawsuits the answer? Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #72 about real property law. If you've ever thought about playing along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the search of Cohen's offices in Episode 164. You can read Michael Cohen's Motion for TRO, which was denied on Monday April 15, as well as his revised request for a special master, which remains pending. This is the Gilmore Complaint filed and Alex Jones, and here is a New York Times story on the other two defamation complaints filed by parents of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
19-4-2018 • 1 uur, 31 minuten, 7 seconden
OA165: You Heard It Here First! (Abortion Rights, Gun Control, and Offensive Trademarks)
Note: The "C" segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law. You've been warned! In the preshow, we tamp down on some unwarranted liberal freakout regarding a recent White House Executive Order regarding the last few fraying strands of our social safety net. After that, we revisit three cases we told you we'd be keeping an eye on. First, we look at the aftermath of Jane Doe v. Wright, which we first discussed in Episodes 117 and 133. Back then, we told you about the fate of a single young woman in state custody who was denied her right to an abortion; today, we tell you about the nationwide class action that was just certified in Garza v. Hargan. Next, we revisit Kolbe v. Hogan, which we called a "landmark" case way back in Episode 47. Find out how a federal district court judge in Massachusetts just applied Kolbe in upholding the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. For our third revisit, we take a look at another trademark case in light of the Slants case (Matal v. Tam) that we first discussed with Simon Tam way back in Episode 33 and reported on Tam's victory before the Supreme Court in Episode 80. The Slants's victory paved the way for disparaging and offensive trademarks, but what about garden-variety "immoral or scandalous" ones, like FUCT clothing or "Big Dick Nick" towels? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to the fiendishly hard Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #71 about whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company! You can click here to read the White House Executive Order on "Reducing Poverty in America;" we quoted from Section 5 at the end. We first discussed Jane Doe v. Wright in Episodes 117 and 133. We first told you about Kolbe v. Hogan in Episode 47; now, you can read the Massachusetts decision in Worman v. Healey. Also, if you like briefs, you can read the petition for certiorari, the State of Maryland's opposition, and the petitioners' reply. We told you about the Slants's case back in our Episode 33 interview with Simon Tam and reported on Tam's Supreme Court win in Episode 80; today, we discuss In re Brunetti, which applies the Matal v. Tam holding to the rest of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Finally, the link you've been waiting for: the Deadspin article about "Big Dick Nick." Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
17-4-2018 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 30 seconden
OA164: As American As Baseball, Hush Money, and... Segregated Schools?
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the FBI's search of the offices of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's personal lawyer and alleged "fixer." First, we begin with a discussion of a curious legal move by the Miami Marlins, alleging that they are, in fact, a ... citizen of the British Virgin Islands?? In the main segment, we find out that Andrew Was Right when he declared Stormy Daniels "A Legal Genius." How right? Listen and find out! Next, we take a return trip to Yodel Mountain, where we discuss Paul Ryan's impending retirement, Wendy Vitter's comically bad confirmation hearing, and more! Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #71 about constitutional law that is the toughest question we've asked to date. If you've ever thought about playing along, now's the time; just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company! If you love procedural questions (and you hate Derek Jeter), you'll want to read the Marlins Notice of Removal as well as Miami's Opposition. Oh, and this is the relevant legal provision, 9 U.S.C. § 202. This is the U.S. Attorneys' Manual; § 9-13.420 governs searching law firm offices. Here's the report on Paul Ryan's fundraising from Politico, announced two days before he decided to retire. Finally, here's a link to the video of Wendy Vitter refusing to answer whether she supports Brown v. Board of Education. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
13-4-2018 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 32 seconden
OA163: Whatcha Gonna Do, Brother? OA vs. Sinclair Broadcasting, the CLOUD Act & the WWE
Today's episode runs wild with an in-depth look a the CLOUD Act slipped in to the latest omnibus spending bill. First, however, we break down the recent viral video from Deadspin showing dozens of Sinclair-owned TV stations reading pro-Trump talking points on the air. How did this happen? What leverage does Sinclair have over your local newscaster? Listen and find out. During the main segment, the guys break down the CLOUD Act and what it means for international data privacy. After that, we answer a listener question about the WWE and independent contractors. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #70 about contracts. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to watch the viral video from Deadspin; you can see excerpted bits from the Sinclair contract sent out via Twitter here and here. This is the text of the CLOUD Act, and you can click here to read the EFF's warnings about it. Finally, for guidance about independent contractors vs. employees, you can check out the Department of Labor's Fact Sheet 13 as well as the guidelines promulgated by the IRS. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
10-4-2018 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 57 seconden
OA162: Tariffs and Trade
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the Trump administration's recently-announced tariffs on China, China's response, and the future of free trade. In the pre-show segment, it's time for a lengthy Andrew Was Wrong segment. From .22s to time zones, Andrew cops to the things he got wrong last week, ending with a discussion of the emoluments lawsuit discussed in Episode 160. In the main segment, Andrew discusses the Trade Act of 1974 and whether it allows Trump to wage a trade war with China. After that, it's time for our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain, this time with a breakdown of the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing as well as Paul Manfort's motion to dismiss and the government's response. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #70 about breach of contract. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Andrew was wrong links: 15 U.S.C. § 260a (time zones), Florida HB 1013, and, if you want to re-listen to our discussion of the emoluments lawsuit, check out Episode 160. In the main segment, the guys discuss the Trade Act of 1974. This is the CNN list of the 106 products on which China is raising tariffs, and this is a link to the New York Times article suggesting that the Trump administration is considering re-joining the TPP. This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. If you'd like to plot that out on the Sentencing Guidelines table, you can do so by clicking here. You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that "Person A" is Konstantin Kilimnik; that was just validated by this report from Business Insider. Finally, you can click here to read the DOJ's response to Manafort's motion to dismiss. For reference, This is Rod Rosenstein’s Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it. We discussed this in full detail back in Episode 136. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
6-4-2018 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 11 seconden
OA161: Gun Control & the Constitution
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at gun control. First, we answer two listener questions about originalism and the Second Amendment, including a provocative one about whether DC v. Heller deserves stare decisis respect under Andrew's model of jurisprudence. The answer may surprise you! In the main segment, we examine HR 5087, the most recent gun control bill to be introduced in Congress. What's in it? What kinds of laws are Democrats looking to pass in light of the Parkland massacre? After that, we check in on the state of Pennsylvania's efforts to combat gerrymandering. Could there actually be good news in this episode? Listen and find out. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #69 about the firefighter's rule. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This episode builds on our two-part masterclass in the Second Amendment: Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 2 (Part 2). The two primary cases discussed are DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. This is the text of HR 5087, the proposed gun control legislation, which amends 18 U.S.C. § 921 and 922. We discussed the Parkland massacre in Episode 148. You can read Chief Justice Thomas Saylor's statement here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
3-4-2018 • 59 minuten, 11 seconden
OA160: Schrodinger's Andrew
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the things Andrew Was Right about over the past few weeks (yay!) as well as the things Andrew Was Wrong about (boo!). It's Schrödinger's Andrew Day! In the pre-show segment, the guys go through the scenario for all of our Opening Arguments Community March Madness potential winners. After that, it's time for Andrew Was Right! (TM). We cover the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum and what it means for Yodel Mountain, as well as both the Amended Complaint and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by our next Attorney General, Stormy Daniels. You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for Andrew Was Wrong (TM), in Andrew owns up to a few corrections about Watergate and revisits the emoluments lawsuit discussed way back in Episode 78. Andrew was skeptical then; has he changed his mind? Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #69 that questions your knowledge of the "firefighter's rule" and whether it protects cops who get sideswiped. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that "Person A" is Konstantin Kilimnik. This is the Amended Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels; you can also read the Notice of Removal filed by EC and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by Daniels. Stormy's expedited trial motion is pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4. This is the Washington Post article on Alexander Butterfield, which is definitely worth a read. Here's the District Court's opinion in the emoluments litigation, which we first discussed back in Episode 78. If you want to dive more into emoluments, you can read Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), or listen to our two-parter with originalist Seth Barrett Tillman: Episode 35 (Part 1) and Episode 36 (Part 2). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
30-3-2018 • 1 uur, 12 minuten
OA159: What Was So Bad About Watergate? Part 1: The Saturday Night Massacre
Today's episode takes our time machine back to 1972, as Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President ("CREEP") planned the break-in to the Watergate Hotel Complex that set in motion the criminal conduct that led to the only time in our nation's history when a President has resigned in disgrace. Exactly what happened? In this episode, we talk about the "Saturday Night Massacre," and what it means today. First, though, we examine the unintended consequences of the Republican tax bill crammed through the Senate in the waning moments of 2017. Might the bill actually prevent the major sports franchises, such as Major League Baseball, from trading players?? Listen and find out! After the main segment, Andrew tackles a listener question regarding the "Guarantee Clause" of the Constitution. What is it, and why should you care? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #67 about breach of contract. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The provision of the tax code discussed in the "A" segment is 26 U.S.C. § 1031, and you can click here to read about the previous IRS opinions regarding major sports franchises and like-kind exchanges. You can also check out the New York Times article that first revealed this uncertainty. The primary cases we discussed regarding Watergate were Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1973) and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). The two cases analyzed in the "C" segment were Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) and dicta from New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
27-3-2018 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 9 seconden
OA158: Cambridge Analytica
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the scandal regarding Cambridge Analytica. Is there a legal angle? Have crimes been committed? Listen and find out! In the pre-show segment, Andrew helps out our reporters by giving theme the question they need to be asking regarding Stormy Daniels, which is: "Now that you’ve acknowledged that you’re DD, and you’ve sued Stormy Daniels for $20 million, can you tell us what claims you had against Ms. Daniels that you believe you settled in that agreement? What could you have sued her for?" You're welcome. That segues into the "A" segment, where the guys discuss the differences (and one strange overlap) between the recent lawsuit filed by Karen McDougal and the top-of-Yodel-Mountain Stormy Daniels lawsuit. After the main segment, we tackle a listener question regarding the difference between textualism and originalism, inspired by our most recent episode, Episode 157. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #68 that requires some math to figure out the appropriate measure of damages for breach of contract. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links This is the National Review article that actually gets Stormy's story right. Here's Mike Murphy's article expressing skepticism of CA's claims. This is the Price v. Facebook class action civil lawsuit, arising out of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. And here's the statement from NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. If you wanted to set up a SuperPAC, Andrew's old pals at Covington & Burling have drafted a simple how-to guide for you. Finally, here's a hilarious Tweet from Peter Drice Wright that highlights a key problem with textualism. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
23-3-2018 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 57 seconden
OA157: Are Originalist Judges Qualified? (w/guest David Michael)
Way back in Episode 49, Andrew argued that lawyers who claim to follow in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia-style originalism should be disqualified from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee need to be challenging Scalia's acolytes (like Neil Gorsuch) on their underlying philosophy and not just their compassion (or lack thereof). In this episode, friend of the show David Michael challenges some of the points made by Andrew in the original episode , as well as raises new ones. Along with Thomas, we have a great three-way discussion about U.S. history, the Federalist papers, key cases, the underlying work of Robert Bork, and more. Does Andrew change his mind? Does Thomas? Listen and find out! After the lengthy interview, we end with the answer to an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to "send a message." Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can listen to our (ahem) original episode on originalism, Episode 49. Please also check out David Michael's new podcast, The Quorum! Here’s a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers. United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both “cruel” and “unusual in the Constitutional sense.” Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
20-3-2018 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 59 seconden
OA156: Conor Lamb & Pennsylvania Recounts
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss Congressman-elect Conor Lamb's victory in Tuesday's PA-18 special election and whether the Republicans will be able to recount the results. After that, Andrew walks through the history of prior restraint under the First Amendment in light of a recent Nevada decision denying the request of the family of one of the Las Vegas massacre victims to suppress his autopsy report... and what that might mean for friend of the show Stormy Daniels. That segues into another Q&A segment where we tackle Yet More Of Your Stormy Questions; this time relating to (1) choice of law and (2) whether Stormy can simply buy back the settlement for $130,000. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to "send a message." Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Thomas discussed the political implications of the Lamb election on Episode 128 of Serious Inquiries Only. We discussed con artist Jill Stein's "recounts" way back in Episode 25 of this show, and the Pennsylvania order denying standing is here. You can also read up on Pennsylvania's Election law, Title 25, Chapter 14.; we specifically discussed §§ 3154(g) (mandatory recounts); 3261-63 (voluntary recounts); and 3459 (bonding requirement). The key case for prior restraint is New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971); you can also read the Nevada Supreme Court opinion. Please also check out David Michael's new podcast, The Quorum! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
16-3-2018 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 59 seconden
OA155: Corporations Are People, My Friend... (and More Stormy)
Today's episode tackles a popular article in The Atlantic which implies that, but for the machinations of one dude in the 1880s, corporations might not be "people," today. Is it true? Listen and find out! First, though, we continue to examine the legal genius of Stormy Daniels by answering some of the most common questions raised in response to our episode. This begins (sadly) with a brief "Andrew Was Wrong" clarification about the operative campaign disclosure requirements as well as an analysis of the arbitration order that came to light just after we went to press with Episode 154, and more! In the main segment, Andrew takes a trip through the history of corporate personhood. After that, we answer a delightful question about hearsay from listener Dr. Jeff Otjen. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and David) Take the Bar Exam Question #66 about murderous political candidates appearing on an "Iron Chef" knockoff... look, you'll just have to listen for yourself. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Stormy Daniels lawsuit (and linked her complaint) back in Episode 154. Since then, Susan Simpson has done some pretty top-notch investigative work as to where the Trump campaign may have hid the payoff to Stormy. The case referred to in the "A" segment is Amendariz v. Foundation Health, 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000). Our main segment discusses Adam Winker's article in The Atlantic, focusing on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886). Finally, the answer to Dr. Jeff's question references two different provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence: Rule 801 (defining hearsay) and Rule 803 (listing the exceptions). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
13-3-2018 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 14 seconden
OA154: Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius
This emergency episode examines the Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels seeking a legal determination that the Settlement Agreement entered into between her, Donald Trump's lawyer, and (allegedly) Donald Trump is not legally binding. We honestly believe that this is a much bigger bombshell than is being portrayed by the press. Listen and find out why. We also end with an all-new TTTBE #66 featuring David Michael. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
8-3-2018 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 30 seconden
OA153: March Madness on Yodel Mountain
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent FBI investigation into NCAA basketball. First, though, the guys take another trip to Yodel Mountain, stopping at base camp to discuss Michael Rogers, Hope Hicks, Jared Kushner, Rick Gates, and everyone's favorite villain, Paul Manafort. During the main segment, Andrew and Thomas cover the recent expose by Yahoo regarding college basketball coaches allegedly paying for top talent. What does this mean for the future of the sport right before March Madness? Listen and find out! After that, we revisit the funniest lawsuit in recent memory, namely, Bob Murray of Murray Energy's defamation lawsuit against John Oliver, which we first covered back in Episode 84. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #65 about an overzealous Eli Bosnick disciple who accidentally poisoned a meat-eater. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is the link to the New York Times story about Adm. Michael Rogers's testimony. This is the superseding indictment filed against Gates and Manafort. This is the Yahoo story on the FBI probe into the NCAA. and these are the NCAA bylaws. We first discussed the Murray Energy lawsuit in Episode 84 and the amicus brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts ("the best legal brief ever written") in Episode 93. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
6-3-2018 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 40 seconden
OA152: Discrimination is for Dick's?
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex applies to sexual orientation as well. This is a follow-up to our prior discussions of this issue back in Episode 60 and Episode 91. In the initial segment, Andrew tackles a question from Twitter about the James Damore lawsuit and employment law in general after our most recent coverage in Episode 150. After the main discussion of Zarda, the guys discuss some of the fallout from the Parkland shooting, including decisions by Dick's Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart to cease certain kinds of gun sales. Is this inappropriate age discrimination? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #65 about vegan criminal law. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana back in Episode 60, and we discussed the panel decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91. You can read the en banc decision of the Second Circuit in Zarda by clicking here. In the "C" segment, the case discussed regarding Ladies' Night is Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 707 P.2d 195 (Cal. 1985). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
2-3-2018 • 1 uur, 24 minuten, 54 seconden
OA151: Equal Access, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and HR 620
Today's episode takes a look at HR 620. What does it mean, and why does Congress want to make changes to one of the most successful, bipartisan, and beloved pieces of legislation in the past 30 years? First, though, the guys update break down a recent decision from the Eastern District of New York also enjoining Trump's rescission of DACA. Why did a second court block Trump's order? Listen and find out! During the main segment, Andrew walks us through the history of the Americans with Disabilities Act and what restrictions HR 620 would impose on would-be plaintiffs. Is it as bad as people are saying? (Hint: yes.) After that, we answer a somewhat off-the-wall question from listener Mark Lunn that's a follow-up to Episode 147 with Lucien Greaves. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #64 about dog law, accidental trespass, and... well, you'll just have to listen. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Don't forget to show up for the monthly Q&A this Wednesday, February 28th, at 8:30 pm Eastern / 5:30 pm Pacific. You can submit your questions here. We covered the first court decision enjoining Trump's order on DACA in Episode 140. You can read the second (New York) decision here. The relevant provision of the ADA modified by HR 620 is 42 U.S.C. § 12188. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
27-2-2018 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 22 seconden
OA150: Janus, The Angry Roman God Of Doorways (And Labor Law?)
In this fast-breaking episode, Thomas and Andrew preview a significant labor case scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court this coming Monday, Janus v. AFSCME. You'll know all about it before the news breaks! In the initial segment, "Andrew Was Wrong" returns with listener criticism over our repetition of the common media statement that Parkland was the "18th" school shooting of 2018. After that, Andrew walks us through Janus v. AFSCME and its implications on the future of unions. Next, the guys revisit ex-Google employee James Damore and discuss the significance of a recent memorandum issued by the National Labor Relations Board regarding his termination. Is The Most Important Lawsuit In The History of Western Civilization still on track? Listen and find out. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #64 about criminal dog law. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Check out the NEW PODCAST created by our very own Thomas Smith and friend-of-the-show Aaron Rabi, "Philosophers in Space." You'll be glad you did! Show Notes & Links Janus is, in fact, the angry god of doorways. We covered the Parkland school shooting in Episode 148. This is the Washington Post article critical of the "Everytown for Gun Safety" statistics, and here is a link to Everytown's actual database of incidents. Judge for yourself! Here is Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), discussed extensively during the show. You can read the NLRB memo advising dismissal here. We covered the (still-pending) James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
Today's emergency episode breaks down the indictments issued in the Mueller probe on Friday, focusing on the shadowy, Putin-funded Internet Research Agency. What does this mean in terms of Yodel Mountain? Listen and find out! After that, we have a lengthy interview with friend of the show Bryce Blankenagel of the Naked Mormonism podcast. Bryce comes on the show to break down the Rob Porter scandal, an innocuous-sounding bill before the Utah state legislature, and the puppet-mastery of the Mormon Church of all things political in that state. After that, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #63, another very difficult question, this one about hearsay. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Check out the NEW PODCAST created by our very own Thomas Smith and friend-of-the-show Aaron Rabi, "Philosophers in Space." You'll be glad you did! Also, Andrew was just a guest on Episode 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast -- give it a listen. Show Notes & Links The case referenced in the A segment is United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2003). This is the text of Utah HB 330, and this is the article Bryce referenced during the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
20-2-2018 • 1 uur, 28 minuten, 45 seconden
OA148: The Parkland Massacre
In this emotional episode, Thomas and Andrew begin by discussing the recent school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Florida. After that, the guys break down the recent settlement between Waymo (the Google-backed automotive company) and Uber regarding allegations of stolen trade secrets in the nascent self-driving car industry. Then, Andrew updates us on the state of gerrymandering litigation in Pennsylvania and before the Supreme Court. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #63 about hearsay. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast -- give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed a modest proposal for gun control in Episode 110., and the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill in Episode 95. Andrew quoted from this CNN article when referencing teacher Melissa Falkowski; from this Washington Post article about Colt's decision to suspend sales of the AR-15 in 1989, and from this blog post on "The Firearm Blog" by the AR-15's designer, Jim Sullivan. California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 can be found at California Penal Code § 30150 et seq. This is the Waymo v. Uber lawsuit, and here is the link where you can view the Powerpoint used during the REAL OPENING STATEMENTS by Waymo's attorneys. Finally, we last discussed gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and elsewhere way back in Episode 146. If you're curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]
16-2-2018 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 36 seconden
OA147: The Satanic Temple (featuring Lucien Greaves)
Today's episode features a full-length interview with the co-founder of The Satanic Temple, Lucien Greaves. This episode is part of a two-part crossover with Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only. In this episode, we talk about TST's lawsuit challenging Missouri's abortion law and other issues at the forefront of church-state separation. After that, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam Question #62, a fiendishly difficult question about the Statute of Frauds. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Don't forget to check out Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only featuring Jex Blackmore! We first discussed TST's lawsuit challenging the Missouri abortion law way back in Episode 7 and Episode 8! You can follow the link to the January 23, 2018 oral arguments in Doe v. Greitens by clicking here. Doe's brief can be found here, and this is the State of Missouri's response. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
13-2-2018 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 23 seconden
OA146: Clearing the White Board!
In this "lightning round" episode, Andrew tackles more than the typical three stories we cover on the show. How much more?? Listen and find out! Potential topics include: the budget showdown and sequestration, the recent Supreme Court rulings on gerrymandering, the Nunes memo, the Federal Reserve, stock market, and Wells Fargo fraud, and ... possibly even more?? Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam #62 involving the statute of frauds. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can read all 652 pages of the proposed budget deal here. The Pennsylvania redistricting case is League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania, 159 MM 2017. We discussed the North Carolina gerrymandering decision in Episode 138; the Supreme Court's brief order staying that decision is here. And, of course, you'll want to review the 2008 Powerpoint and 2010 "Snidely Whiplash" REDMAP Powerpoint. This is the full text of the Nunes memo. We discussed FISA courts in depth in Episode 106, which covered 50 U.S.C. § 1805, the authorizing legislation. Finally, you can read the Federal Reserve's cease-and-desist against Wells Fargo; the enabling legislation is 12 U.S.C. § 1818 et seq. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
9-2-2018 • 1 uur, 29 seconden
OA145: Britt Hermes and German Defamation Law
Today's episode features a full-length interview with former naturopath turned whistleblower Britt Marie Hermes. We talk about her amazing career and the recent defamation lawsuit filed against her under German law. After that, we answer a question from Very Special Listener Lydia S. about a viral tweet suggesting that Native Americans grant honorary citizenship to DACA enrolees. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #61, the end of our three-part Dungeons & Dragons question about ogres, assault, trespass, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here's a link to the German defamation law, which begins at section 185. You should check out Britt Hermes's excellent blog, Naturopathic Diaries. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
6-2-2018 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 33 seconden
OA144: Our Football-Free Superb Owl Edition
If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of how one Donald J. Trump destroyed the USFL. Everyone else can enjoy today's sports-free episode, which begins with a discussion of California SB 183 and so-called "sanctuary cities" in light of the State of the Union. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down news about a proposed Department of Labor rule regarding the "tip credit." After that, the guys discuss yesterday's landmark opinion holding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau constitutional. Finally, we end with our third Dungeons & Dragons-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #61) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and possible assault by an errant crossbow bolt. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can read the text of Cal. SB 183 here. This is the Bloomberg News article on the Trump DOL burying the factfinding report; here is a link to the NPRM. Finally, you can read PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the D.C. Circuit opinion discussed during the "C" segment. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
2-2-2018 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 14 seconden
OA143: Same-Sex Couples and Citizenship
Today's episode features a deep dive into two recently-filed lawsuits on behalf of same-sex couples where the government literally wants to break up their families. And don't forget to tune in for our LIVE Q&A this Wednesday, 1/31, at 7 pm EST / 4 pm Pacific. First, though we return to the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizens by examining a recent bill introduced in the New Hampshire state legislature. Does it really threaten cities in New Hampshire with a $10,000 fine if they don't subscribe to sovereign citizen nonsense? Listen and find out! In the main segment, we cover the Blixt and Dvash-Banks lawsuits. Did INS really make a determination that one twin is a U.S. citizen and the other isn't? The answer (yes) probably won't surprise you. After that, we answer a listener question about whether the Supreme Court is as political as it seems. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #60 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Get your Q&A Questions in and vote for your favorites! You can read the full text of New Hampshire HB 1653 here, and, if you're not up on your sovereign citizen lingo, be sure to check out LAM 13 ("Meet Your Strawman"). Oh, and don't forget to check out Wes Jensen's amazing sovereign citizen wackiness ("Hiding Behind the BAR") if you want to know the secrets they won't tell you. The 14th Amendment's birth citizenship clause is implemented by 8 U.S.C. § 1401, and then further interpreted by 7 FAM 1140, Appendix E. Finally, here's the NPR article on Gorsuch voting with Thomas 100% of the time. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
30-1-2018 • 58 minuten, 27 seconden
OA142: The Opioid Crisis -- A (Mostly) Non-Partisan Friday
Today's episode features a deep dive into our nation's opioid crisis. First, the guys take a look at a recent bad court thingy filed by Paul Manafort's lawyers in connection with his criminal prosecution. What does it mean? Listen and find out! In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down the just-released Senate Subcommittee Report on illegal opioid use in this country and discuss how an obscure 1874 treaty organization affects international drug trafficking. You won't want to miss it! After the main segment, Andrew answers a question from one of our youngest listeners, high school sophmore Brian about a recent free speech case at the University of Alabama. You may be surprised at the answer! Finally, we end with our second of three Middle Earth-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #60) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Manafort's accidentally-included legal memo can be found here. You can hear Deborah Smith and Zach Law discuss opioids here. This is the Senate Subcommittee Report on Opioid Interdiction, and this is the text of SB 708. Finally, here's a link to Papish v. Board of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), the case we discussed in answering Brian's question. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
26-1-2018 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 55 seconden
OA141: Stormy Daniels Answers Your Tax Questions
Today's episode features a full-length interview with Tony DiFatta, accountant to the podcasting stars. He answers your questions about the 2017 omnibus tax bill that were posted in this Patreon thread. First, though, we take a look at whether Stormy Daniels can be silenced (or sued) because of the NDA she presumably signed with the Trump organization. After a deep dive into the new tax bill, we we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #59 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed Trump's NDA in Episode 137; you can read the letter quoting the NDA here. Click here to find out more about Tony D. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
23-1-2018 • 1 uur, 23 minuten, 21 seconden
OA140: DACA and More!
Today's episode features a deep dive in the latest legal news surrounding the DACA program. First, the guys tackle a listener question regarding the difference between the James Damore case against Google and Colin Kaepernick's grievance against the NFL. Are the two cases similar? After the main segment, Andrew walks us through a case that was just argued before the Supreme Court, McCoy v. Louisiana, in which a lawyer conceded his client's guilt during a capital murder trial over the client's objections. Finally, we end with an all-new Game of Thrones-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #59) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed the James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, and the Kaepernick grievance on OA Episode 115. The Sherman Antitrust Act begins at 15 U.S.C. § 1. We first discussed the DACA recission on Episode 102. You can read the District Court decision on DACA here. The primary case we discussed in the assistance of counsel section was Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
19-1-2018 • 1 uur, 16 minuten
OA139: Cara Santa Maria & Why Two Dudes Named Iqbal and Twombly Are Hanging Out On Yodel Mountain
Today's episode features a full-length interview with the one and only Cara Santa Maria! First, though, we pore through the Fusion GPS testimony that was leaked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and we look at a companion defamation lawsuit filed by one of Trump's lawyers, Michael Cohen, against Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Click here to read the Cohen Complaint. Andrew also sneakily uses this as an excuse to teach us all about federal motions to dismiss and the Iqbal and Twombly cases. Next, we talk to Cara, who talks skepticism, the law, and science education with us. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and CaraTake the Bar Exam Question #58 about breach of contract for the hottest tech gadget of 1987, the Walk-n-Talkman. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, discussing the James Damore lawsuit against Google, as well as This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict discussing felon voting rights. Check 'em out! Show Notes & Links You'll want to check out Michael Wolff's response to the Trump cease-and-desist letter we made fun of back in Episode 137. You can read the Fusion GPS testimony by clicking here. Finally, you should go check out Cara Santa Maria's website for all things Cara! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
16-1-2018 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 24 seconden
OA138: Pot, Gerrymandering, and Net Neutrality
Today's episode tackles a number of breaking legal issues. First, the guys break down the recent memorandum by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on marijuana. What does this mean for the average recreational user in a state where pot is legal, like California? Listen and find out! Next, Andrew walks us through the recent decision by a three-judge panel in North Carolina invalidating that state's electoral districts. After that, the guys tackle a question from listener Jeremy Feldman about Net Neutrality and the Congressional Review Act. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Cara Santa Maria!) Take the Bar Exam Question #58 about the hottest new gadget, the Mitsubishi Walk-and-Talkman! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The Controlled Substances Act is 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. You can read the Cole Memo here, and then the Sessions Memo rescinding it. This is the US Attorney's Manual discussed on the show. We first discussed gerrymandering back in OA 54, and then again in OA 72 and OA 80. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
12-1-2018 • 1 uur, 22 minuten, 49 seconden
OA137: How to (Almost) Defame Someone and Get Away With It -- The SciBabe Story (w/guest Yvette d'Entremont)
Today's episode is all about the First Amendment and features a full-length interview with the one and only SciBabe, Yvette Guinevere d'Entremont! First, though, we answer a listener question from Secular Saint about the free press clause that was raised during our most recent patron-only Q&A show. Next, we talk to Yvette, who shares some amazing stories about her life taking down rich and powerful celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Vani Hari (the "Food Babe"), and David Avocado Wolfe. After that, we tackle Trump's cease-and-desist letters sent to Steve Bannon and the publishers of the new book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House . Special thanks to Niall O'Donnell and Deborah Smith of the Opening Arguments Facebook Community for finding the texts of these letters! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and Yvette Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a frostbitten drifter wandering through what might be a libertarian paradise. (Seriously!) Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links In answering Secular Saint's question, Andrew discussed Sonja West's UCLA Law Review article, "Awakening the Press Clause" as well as this op-ed by Eugene Volokh. We discuss the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for libel in numerous episodes, but in particular in Episode 84 about John Oliver's lawsuit. Yvette has some great articles that we talked about, including "The Unbearable Wrongness of Gwyneth Paltrow" and "David Avocado Wolfe is the Biggest Asshole in the Multiverse." Trump's cease-and-desist to Steve Bannon is here (Twitter screencap), and the one to Steve Rubin and Michael Wolff is here. You can compare it to the laughable Roy Moore litigation hold letter we discussed in Episode 122. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
9-1-2018 • 1 uur, 15 minuten, 6 seconden
OA136: Chevron Deference Has Consequences -- Particularly For Paul Manafort!
Today's episode tackles the recent lawsuit filed by Paul Manafort against the Department of Justice, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller. First, we share some insights from our listeners about our recent deep dive into cryptocurrency, and promise a return visit Real Soon Now. After that, we take a deep dive into Chevron deference, Neil Gorsuch's mommy, and the legal landscape set more than 30 years ago... and why that's all come under fire by one Paul S. Manafort. It's an extra-long, double-length segment but we think you'll love it! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Yvette!) Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a wanderer stuck in a snowstorm who breaks into a cabin... look, you'll just have to listen, okay? Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed cryptocurrency in OA 134. You should read the Manafort lawsuit, and then to understand it, try and tackle Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). We started warning you about Neil Gorsuch way back in Epsiode 40. We were right. The case in which he salivates about overturning Chevron deference is Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (2016). Count I of the complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Count II arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. This is Rod Rosenstein's Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it. Finally, you can read Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) and also laugh at the fantastic what-if comic about Ted Olson. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
5-1-2018 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 25 seconden
OA135: The OA Inaugural Democratic Presidential Candidates Fantasy Draft
Happy New Year! In today's special episode, Andrew, Thomas, and Chris Kristofco of the Titletown Sound podcast draft Democratic Presidential candidates for 2020. After the draft, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #56 about a bona fide sale of a stove. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can find Chris's show, Titletown Sound Off, by clicking here. Our rosters are as follows: Chris: Elizabeth Warren (Sen-MA) Joe Biden (VP-DE) Amy Klobuchar (Sen-MN) Tim Kaine (Sen-VA) Sherrod Brown (Sen-OH) Bob Iger Michelle Obama Tim McGraw Andrew: Kamala Harris (Sen-CA) Cory Booker (Sen-NJ) Andrew Cuomo (Gov-NJ) John Hickenlooper (Gov-CO) Julian Castro (HUD Sec'y) Eric Holder (Att'y General) Mark Cuban Oprah Winfrey Thomas: Bernie Sanders (Sen-VT) Kirsten Gillibrand (Sen-NY) Eric Garcetti (Mayor-LA) Terry McAuliffe (Gov-VA) Tulsi Gabbard (Cong-HI) Mark Zuckerberg Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson Howard Schultz Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
2-1-2018 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 6 seconden
OA134: Do Intergalactic Extraterrestrial Anchor Babies Use Cryptocurrency?
Today's episode is a deep dive into cryptocurrency. First, we're delighted to share some breaking news with you that follows up on our Episode 132 about a student and his crazy-person lawyer trying to introduce creationism at Thomas's old high school, Bret Harte High. As it turns out, friend of the show and FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel has written a masterful letter to the school and offered to co-counsel with them pro bono. In the extra-length main segment, we discuss some of the issues surrounding cryptocurrency and the law. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #56 about the fraudulent sale of a stove. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 14 of the How-To Heretic podcast! Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We first discussed Bret Harte High in our Episode 132; you can also read an account of the school board hearing; visit crazy person Greg Glaser's website and read all about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology, and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution. Andrew Seidel's letter is republished (with his permission) here. The actual cases relevant to the dispute are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111, and Episode 131. And if that's still not enough Andrew for you, you can catch up on Andrew Seidel's most recent writings: his op-ed on Masterpiece Cakeshop, which you can read here; his blog post on right-wing legal organizations; and, of course, his FFRF press release celebrating the victory in keeping Mateer and Talley off the federal bench. You can view the IGM survey we discuss here. This is the bitcoin FAQ. The case I discuss is SEC v. Shavers, 2013 WL 4028182 (E.D. Texas Aug. 6, 2013, Case No. 4:13-cv-416). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
29-12-2017 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 57 seconden
OA133: So You Want To Go To Law School?
Happy holidays, everyone! Today's special episode tackles a number of issues about being in law school and being a lawyer. First, however, we begin with an update on the Trump administration's efforts to restrict the reproductive rights of young women in federal custody first discussed in Episode 117. In the main segment, Andrew solicits some advice from some lawyer and law student friends-of-the-show and tries to answer some of your most recurring questions like "Should I go to law school?" "If so, where?" "What's it like?" "Will I like being a lawyer?" and so forth. If you've ever dreamed about sitting in the chair opposite Thomas, this is the show for you! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas TakeS The Bar Exam question #55 about water damage to a boat. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We broke down Jane Doe v. Wright in Episode 117. You can read the government's stay application in Hargan v. Garza by clicking here, and the court's Order here. Resources for law students include the National Association of Law Placement's 2017 research, the in-depth reports put out by Law School Transparency, the somewhat off-color "Law School Sewage Pit Profiles" site, and the ATL report on cheapest law schools in the country. Finally, if you're dying to know what a scorpion bowl is, you can check out the Kong's website. It's a Harvard institution! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
26-12-2017 • 1 uur, 28 minuten, 9 seconden
LAM2: Miracle on 34th Street with Eli Bosnick!
As a gift to our amazing listeners, here's the great Eli Bosnick breaking down Miracle on 34th Street with the guys! If you enjoy this Law'd Awful Movies, make sure to check out Patreon.com/law for more!
25-12-2017 • 1 uur, 58 minuten, 55 seconden
OA132: The Thomas Show! Can He Serve on the Federal Bench? Why is His High School Crazy? & More!
Today's episode is all about the budding legal expert co-host of this show, one Thomas Smith, Esq. soon-to-be of Thomas's Second Chance Law Firm. First, taking a cue from the hilarious failed nomination of Matthew Petersen to the federal bench, Andrew asks Thomas the same kinds of basic questions. Is Thomas more qualified than Trump's judicial nominees? (The answer will not surprise you.) In the main segment, the guys break down a threatened "God's Not Dead 2"-style lawsuit at Thomas's old high school, Bret Harte High. Strap in for a bumpy ride, because this one is a roller coaster of crazy. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #55 about damaging a boat. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The fabulous "Thomas's Second Chance Law Firm" graphic was designed by fan of the show Kristen Hansen; you can follow her @wrathofkhansen on Twitter. If you haven't yet watched Sen. Kennedy (R-LA) humiliate laughably unqualified former Trump federal judicial nominee Matthew Petersen, you really should. You can read all about the hearing at Thomas's high school here. Crazy person Greg Glaser is a serial blogger who writes about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology; and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution. The actual cases relevant to the dispute are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
22-12-2017 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 46 seconden
OA131: Andrew^2 (w/guest Andrew Seidel)
Today's episode welcomes back one of our favorite guests -- and the show's only three-time guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Together, Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas tackle a bunch of church and state separation issues. First, they break down Andrew Seidel's recent success in convincing the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject their most unqualified judges, Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley. Then, the gang does a deep dive into the oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop hate-bakery case. After that, Andrew Seidel gives us his take on a new Christian right-wing lobbying group co-founded by Gordon Klingenschmitt. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Andrew!) Take The Bar Exam question #54 about witness statements and overlapping privilege. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast and Episode 229 of the Atheist Nomads podcast. Give 'em a listen! Show Notes & Links We broke down the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in Episode 105, and you can follow along with the guys by reading the transcript of the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral argument before the Supreme Court! If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive), and Episode 111. And if that's still not enough Andrew for you, you can catch up on Andrew Seidel's most recent writings: his op-ed on Masterpiece Cakeshop, which you can read here; his blog post on right-wing legal organizations; and, of course, his FFRF press release celebrating the victory in keeping Mateer and Talley off the federal bench. Find out all about Go Klings's latest right-wing "legal" group here. Finally, consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
19-12-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 2 seconden
OA130: California on Fire
Today's episode talks about the disastrous wildfires that have ravaged Thomas's home state of California, and who winds up footing the bills for these disasters. It's exactly as much insurance law as you wanted to learn! First, we begin with some news items, including an update on the Net Neutrality vote, a new mega-merger, and the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, a case we discussed back in Episode 112. After the main segment, Andrew and Thomas also update on the pending tax bill and some other items in the news. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #54 about witness statements and overlapping privileges. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 229 of the Atheist Nomads podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed the AT&T/Time Warner merger in OA 128; you can read about the new Disney/Fox merger here. This is the petitioners' brief for cert in Evans, and this is the response brief filed by the hospital. We discussed several provisions of the California Insurance Code, including Section 1861.05 ("Proposition 103" that prohibits rate hikes); Section 2032 (a consumer protection provision); and Section 2071 (standard form fire insurance policy). Here's a New York Times article about the impending tax deal, and this is the begging letter sent by the American Bar Association. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
15-12-2017 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 25 seconden
OA129: "Don't Talk To The Police"
Should you take legal advice from a viral video on YouTube? Today's episode is all about judges, lawyers, attorney-client privilege, and the police. We begin with the news that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez; why? After that, the guys break down a video called "Don't Talk To The Police" and discuss some hallmarks of legal videos online. After that, Andrew tackles Donald Trump Jr.'s assertion that whenever a lawyer enters the room, attorney-client privilege shields everything. Is that really true? (No.) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #53 about witness impeachment. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links This is the recusal letter sent on behalf of Justice Kagan; and here is the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. You can watch the "Don't Talk To The Police" video. Here's the data on Regent University's fake law school. The first out-of-context quote comes from Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949). The second out-of-context quote comes from Justice Breyer's dissent in Rubin v. U.S., a 1998 cert petition regarding the extent of executive privilege. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
12-12-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 38 seconden
OA128: Antitrust, Part Two
Today's episode concludes the discussion begun in Episode 125 about antitrust law in light of the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger. First, though, we begin with some news items, including an update on Patreon practices and the status of Leandra English's lawsuit to become Acting Director of the CFPB. In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the Department of Justice's lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner with an eye towards answering the question "is this just an effort to punish CNN?" After the main segment, fan favorite "Closed Arguments!" returns with an evaluation of Alan Dershowitz and John Dowd's claims that the President cannot obstruct justice. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #53 about witness impeachment. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on The Science Enthusiast podcast; you can watch the video of that here. Show Notes & Links Here's the update on the Leandra English lawsuit. Before tackling this week's episode you might want to re-listen to Episode 125 and read the Department of Justice's lawsuit. The principal case that applies to Trump's claims of immunity is U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). And as always, we recommend friend-of-the-show Randall Eliason's Washington Post article on the practical implications of the immunity argument. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
8-12-2017 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 10 seconden
OA127: Special Edition - What Michael Flynn's Plea Deal Means (w/guest Randall Eliason)
For $30 off your first week of HelloFresh, visit hellofresh.com and enter lawpod30! Today's special episode tackles the breaking news that Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty in connection with the Mueller investigation. To break down the significance of this deal, we welcome back Prof. Randall Eliason. After that, Andrew answers a bunch of listener questions regarding the tax bill that just passed the Senate. Recent Appearances Andrew just did two episodes of the David Pakman show: first, he was on talking about #NetNeutrality; and then, he came back for a segment on the Mueller investigation. You can see both -- including Andrew's spiffy new webcam -- by clicking the YouTube links above! Show Notes & Links This is a copy of the Flynn plea deal; he's pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Prof. Eliason's "Sidebars" blog is here, and you can read his latest Washington Post article about Flynn by clicking here. We referenced statements by Seth Abramson (scroll forward to linked reply #6); Alan Dershowitz, and a pretty awful article by Andrew McCarthy in the National Review. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
5-12-2017 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 38 seconden
OA126: Mick Mulvaney & The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Today's episode breaks down the recent kerfuffle over the simultaneous claims of Leandra English and Mick Mulvaney to be Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). First, we begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong (?)" segment that gives voice to an anti-Net Neutrality argument, a clarification on the Obama administration's antitrust policies, and a factual clarification on the Anheuser-Busch/InBev merger. After the main segment, Andrew and Thomas answer a fun question about speeding and evidence AND tease the upcoming Law'd Awful Movies #13. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #52 about the constitutionality of a cigarette tax and accompanying program. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links For Jaqen and others, we recommend OA22: "Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad." Here is the lawsuit filed by Leandra English; and this is the memorandum supporting her motion for TRO. On the other side, you can read the memorandum issued by Asst. Attorney General Steven A. Engel and the companion memo authored by CFPB Counsel Mary McLeod. The statutes we cited during the show are two sections of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 and 5 U.S.C. § 3347, as well as a portion of Dodd-Frank, 12 U.S.C. § 5491. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
1-12-2017 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 34 seconden
OA125: Net Neutrality and Antitrust, Part One
Today's episode takes two deep dives into complicated legal issues in the news. First, we tackle the FCC's recent "Order Restoring Internet Freedom," which is being characterized as ending Net Neutrality. Is that true? The answer... probably won't surprise you, actually. Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss general principles of antitrust law with an eye towards the recent news that the Trump Department of Justice has sued to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger. Finally, we close with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #51 involving class action lawsuits in Tenntucky. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew is going to be on the Wednesday broadcast of the David Pakman show; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We first discussed Net Neutrality in Episode 64 and Episode 65. The text of the Open Internet Order of 2015 is here. You can also read the Heritage Foundation's plea to have internet regulations fall under FTC rather than FCC jurisdiction. The interim vote to reverse the Open Internet Order of 2015 is here. This is the full Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order ("Restoring Internet Freedom"). This is FTC Commissioner Clyburn's Minority Report and guide to the order. We first discussed antitrust laws in connection with the USFL lawsuit in Episode 57 and Episode 58. Here is the DOJ's lawsuit attempting to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger. The main citations we relied upon in the show were 15 U.S.C. § 1 (The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890); 15 U.S.C. § 18 (The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (the FTC Act of 1914). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
28-11-2017 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 8 seconden
OA124: Happy Thanksgiving!
Today's episode is the Happiest Episode Ever (TM)! First, the guys discuss "the real meaning of Thanksgiving," cribbing from a blog post Andrew wrote for his old firm back in 2013. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down a pending case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia regarding Donald Trump's tweets and the Freedom of Information Act, as well as an update on the status of Trump's "Sanctuary Cities" executive order first discussed on OA 65. Then, Thomas answers a delightful listener question about what he likes. The answer WILL surprise you! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #51 about justiciability and standing. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a return guest on the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Check out "The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving" here. The Freedom of Information Act can be found at 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. We discussed the influential Garland opinion of ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013). We first discuss the "Sanctuary Cities" EO in Episode 65, and you can read the permanent injunction here. Finally, you can submit your show quotes here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
24-11-2017 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 41 seconden
OA123: Cards Against Humanity (And Thomas), "Magic Words" & so much more!
In this fun, pre-Thanksgiving episode, we delve into a number of interesting topics. We begin with the popular (if much maligned by Thomas) card game "Cards Against Humanity" and their pitch to "save America." Are you surprised that it turns into a deep dive about eminent domain? (You shouldn't be.) After that, Andrew answers a listener question about whether, in fact, there are "magic words" in the law. How does this relate to the infamous lawyer dog? Listen and find out! Next, the guys discuss Trump's secret war on the judiciary, beginning with a judge less qualified than Thomas and most OA listeners. It's depressing! It's true! It's... depressing. The episode closes with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #50 involving hot rods, cruisin', and assault with a deadly car hood. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a return guest on Episode 7 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Check out Cards Against Humanity Saves America! Oh, and afterwards, give Episode 52 of Comedy Shoeshine a listen and hear how Thomas really feels about adult Apples-to-Apples! You can read this Washington Post story about the infamous "lawyer dog" by clicking here. And, of course, you can always read Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
21-11-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 49 seconden
OA122: Moore is Less
Today's episode is, unfortunately, all about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. First, the guys discuss the unintentionally hilarious litigation hold letter filed by Moore's attorney. After that, Andrew and Thomas break down Alabama's election laws and discuss a variety of proposals being circulated for replacing Moore on the ballot. Next, the guys end with a discussion of whether the Senate can expel Moore from its ranks in the event that he wins. Finally, we end with an all-new "West Side Story"-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #50. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is the AL.com story containing the litigation hold letter they received from Moore's attorney. The relevant law is Alabama Code 17-6-21. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
17-11-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 6 seconden
OA121: A Theory of Justice and the Social Contract (w/guest Aaron Rabi of Embrace the Void)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into social contract theory, and in particular, one of the most influential works of modern philosophy, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, with guest philosopher Aaron Rabi, host of the terrific podcast Embrace The Void. After the discussion, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Check out Embrace The Void by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
14-11-2017 • 1 uur, 21 minuten, 51 seconden
OA120: OA Shills For Monsanto! (w/guest Natalie Newell of "Science Moms")
Today's episode features Natalie Newell of the documentary "Science Moms" discussing GMO labeling and science awareness. First, we begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment that updates some previous stories, including good news from the Jane Doe v. Wright decision discussed in Episode 117 and some clarification regarding the Manafort indictment from Episode 118. After that, Natalie Newell joins us for a lengthy discussion on GMOs in light of legislation passed in 2016 requiring uniform national labeling. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here is the press release regarding Jane Doe's abortion. The GMO labeling law we discuss is the "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Act of 2016," 7 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq. And you can (and should!) check out "Science Moms" by clicking here and listen to Natalie's podcast, The Science Enthusiast. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
10-11-2017 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 20 seconden
OA119: Trump's Trans Ban (& More)
Today's episode takes a look at the recent decision in Doe v. Trump in which a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the majority of President Trump's ban on trans servicemembers in the armed forces. First, though, we begin with a discussion of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the requirement that prosecutors turn over exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants. In the "C" segment, we discuss two articles surrounding Trump's legal strategy in light of last week's indictments. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirators, confessions, and hearsay. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The two cases discussed in the "A" segment were Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). You can read the full text of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision in Doe v. Trump by clicking here. The two articles discussed in the "C" segment were this article from the Daily Beast and this article from The Hill. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
7-11-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 52 seconden
OA118: Indictment Monday & the View From Yodel Mountain
Today's rapid-response episode tackles -- of course -- the indictment of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his protege, Rick Gates, as well as the guilty plea entered by Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos. What does it all mean? Listen to a special full-length episode and find out! After our full discussion, we end with a timely new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirator confessions. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links You can (and should) read the Papadopoulos statement of offense. Papadopoulos has pled guilty to providing a false statement to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. After that, you can read the Manafort and Gates indictment by clicking here. Manafort and Gates are collectively charged with 12 crimes, including conspiracy to commit an offense against or to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspiracy to launder money,18 U.S.C. § 1956; seven counts of record-keeping violations under 31 U.S.C. § 5314; two separate violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 612 et seq.; and, of course, providing false statements to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
3-11-2017 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 51 seconden
OA117: Restricting Abortion Rights (& a Deep Dive into Res Judicata)
Today's episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration's efforts to deny her the right to an abortion. We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91. Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like "claim-splitting" and res judiciata. In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion. Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as "sexual harassment." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord responsibility and immunity. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The recent news regarding the 9th Circuit was reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets. We first discussed Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91. New York's Human Rights Law can be found in the New York Consolidated Laws, Art. 15, § 290 et seq. We took you through the current status of abortion in our detailed two-part discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Episode 27 and Episode 28. You can read Jane Doe's complaint, as well as the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Jane Doe v. Wright. The regulations implementing sexual harrassment under Title VII can be found at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
31-10-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten
OA116: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump & The Russians - Election Law (w/guest Beth Kingsley)
Today's rapid-response episode tackles the recent news that Hillary Clinton's campaign and/or the DNC paid for the "Russian dossier" on Donald Trump. What does that mean in terms of U.S. election law? Listen and find out! We begin with a quick news update on various lawsuits against poker pro Phil Ivey, a story we covered way back in Episode 32 with guest Chris Kristofco. Next, we take a quick look at New York's use of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and what this might mean for Thomas's Second-Chance Law Firm! In our main segment, we talk to election law expert Beth Kingsley on the "Trump Dossier" and the role played by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Is it time to "Lock Her Up?" After that, we examine the recent Senate vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule regarding class action lawsuits. What does it mean, and did Andrew contradict himself with his earlier support for arbitration? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord immunity. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can listen to the fascinating tale of Phil Ivey's edge-sorting scheme by checking out Episode 32, and if you would like to hear more from Chris Kristofco, check out his podcast, "Titletown Sound Off." This is the Yahoo News article about Ivey. Here are the New York bar exam results, courtesy of Above the Law. We first discussed Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting with the Russians back in Episode 86, and then again in Episode 93 when we answered Sage's question. The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121. Here is the CFPB rule that was just voted down by the Senate. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
27-10-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 35 seconden
OA115: Colin Kaepernick's Grievance Against the NFL (Featuring Chris Kluwe)
Today's episode features former NFL punter, social justice advocate, and game designer Chris Kluwe, who sued his former NFL team for wrongful termination after he alleged that they cut him for standing up for marriage equality. Kluwe brings his unique behind-the-scenes knowledge to help us understand Colin Kaepernick's recently-filed grievance against the NFL, and gives us some bold predictions as to what's going to happen next. Even if you're not a football fan, we think you'll love this conversation. After that, Andrew and Thomas break down a recent story circulating about former FBI Director James Comey and (of course) Hillary Clinton's "damned emails," which we first discussed way back in Episode 13. (If you haven't listened to that episode, you probably should; it's really good!) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 as to whether pre-nuptial agreements must be in writing. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You too can read Colin Kaepernick's arbitration demand; we archived a copy of it here. We first discussed Hillary Clinton's "damned emails" and the Comey investigation back in Episode 13. Here is a link to the (almost entirely redacted) email chain regarding Comey's statement. Finally, you should absolutely check out Kluwe's new card game, Twilight of the Gods, by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
24-10-2017 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 50 seconden
OA114: Presidential Powers - Obamacare and the Travel Ban
Today's rapid-response episode begins with an update on the Allergan patent licensing scheme discussed in Episode 107. What does a federal judge think of this One Weird Trick to avoid certain legal proceedings? Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's efforts to undermine Obamacare from the Oval Office. Does this violate the Constitution? Is there anything we can do about it? The answer might surprise you! After that, we continue the theme by looking at the two recent injunctions handed down by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland regarding the third iteration of President Trump's Travel Ban. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 about prenuptial agreements. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Thomas was on Episode 60 of the "Atheists on High" podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Allergan patents for Restasis back in Episode 107, along with no other controversial things at all. The court's opinion regarding Allergan's joinder of the native American tribe can be found here; and the main opinion on the validity of the patent can be found here. This is a link to the Vox article by Prof. Gluck alleging that Trump has violated the "Take Care" clause of the Constitution. The Nixon-era case we discuss is Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975). This is the text of Presidential Proclamation 9645 ("EO-3"). Here is a link to the Hawaii opinion; and here is a link to the Maryland opinion. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
20-10-2017 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 22 seconden
OA 113: Our Cruel & Unusual Podcast Heads to International Waters
Today's episode is entirely Trump-free, and features a deep dive into the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment. We begin, however, with a great listener question from Captain Patrick Dobbins, who wants to know the ins and outs of "international waters." Ask, and ye shall receive! After that, the guys break down the history of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" -- what does it mean, what kinds of punishments are prohibited, and when did it begin to apply to state prisons? You WILL be surprised. Then, we tackle with another listener question from Patron Cody Bond, who wants to know more about price discrimination, cake baking, and "Ladies' Night." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #45 regarding licenses for massage parlors. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed the thorny nature of what constitutes property way back in Episode 22, "Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad." If you'd like to read the U.N. "Law of the Sea" Treaty, get ready to settle in for a lengthy read! The two death penalty cases wediscuss are Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). The Huffington Post records Antonin Scalia's 2008 interview with Nina Totenberg approving of putting people in the stocks. The case we discuss in the "C" segment outlawing "Ladies' Night" in California is Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 707 P.2d 195 (Cal. 1985). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
17-10-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 22 seconden
OA112: Who's Afraid of the FCC?
Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of a recent petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari filed in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, and in particular, an amicus curiae brief submitted by 76 employers. How does this brief affect the future of gay rights in this country? Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's recent threat to have the FCC "revoke NBC's license," and rewards you with a deep dive into what the FCC is and what it can and cannot do. (Hint: it cannot revoke NBC's "license.") Remember that we first discussed the FCC's "Common Carrier" regulatory authority back in Episode 64 and Episode 65 in evaluating the history of the net neutrality movement. After that, we answer two related listener questions from patrons John Funk and Secular Ewok about the attorney-client relationship and some crazy situations. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #45 about the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in the context of a business license. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links As background to this issue: we first discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, and then followed up with our discussion of Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91. This is the cert petition filed by Evans. And this is the amicus brief filed by the 76 employers that you should definitely read. Here's the New York Times story about Trump threatening NBC. And, of course, you can read the FCC's description of its own regulations. The FCC derives its authority to regulate broadcast media from 47 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter C. Finally, you can click here to read Rule 1.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
13-10-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 48 seconden
OA111: Andrew Seidel Returns!
Today's episode marks the triumphant return of attorney Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to the show! We begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment in which patron Kristen Hansen discusses how better to evaluate charities than the simple overhead metric the guys used in Episode 102. After that, Andrew Seidel joins us for two segments. First, the two Andrews discuss separation of church and state, including their recent disagreement as to whether FEMA funds will be spent rebuilding churches damaged by the recent hurricanes, as well as a return foray into gay wedding cakes discussed in Episode 105. Then, Andrew Seidel updates us regarding two recent victories by the FFRF. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #44 regarding witness testimony. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links If you like their work, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation. We originally discussed the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in Episode 105. Here is the link to the major victory Andrew Seidel discussed in the "C" segment of the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
10-10-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 47 seconden
OA110: Gun Control After Las Vegas & Two Trips To Yodel Mountain
Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of the tragedy in Las Vegas and whether we can do anything about it. Before you dig in, you might want to take a refresher on our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment in Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 26 (Part 2). Then, we take our first of two separate trips to Yodel Mountain with the recent revelation that the Trump DOJ disregarded decades of advice before issuing an opinion memo that authorized the (blatantly illegal) hiring of Jared Kushner. Is this really a Hillary Clinton story? Listen and find out! After that, we trek back up Yodel Mountain with the breaking news that the New York Attorney General's office was about to indict Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump in 2012... until the AG received a visit (and a bag of money!) from Donald Trump's lawyer, Marc Kasowitz. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #44 about hearsay... and Thomas is joined by next week's guest, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment begins with Episode 21 (Part 1) and continues in Episode 26 (Part 2). After that, we discussed Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017), which we also covered in depth in Episode 47. You can read the Trump Administration's talking points on Las Vegas here. This is the breaking story by Politico about the DOJ ignoring precedent. The case Andrew discusses at length is AAPS v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is being grossly misreported in the media; see, for example, this NPR story. This is 5 U.S.C. App. § 1, the Federal Advisory Committee Act. You can read the ProPublica story here that suggests that Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were about to be indicted in 2012. The federal bribery law is 18 U.S.C. § 201; the relevant case is McDonnell v. U.S., 579 U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016); and you can check out our friend Randall Eliason's great analysis of the bribery statute here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
6-10-2017 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 30 seconden
OA109: The GOP Tax Plan's Big Lie (& More!)
Today's show discusses: A) The Jones Act and Puerto Rico; B) The GOP's tax plan; and C) Oral arguments in the Zarda v. Altitude Express case we discussed back in Episode 91. Support us on Patreon at patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
3-10-2017 • 1 uur, 1 minuut
OA108: State-Sponsored Patriotism In the NFL & So Much More!
Today's episode hits on some timely news stories, including Trump's latest kerfuffle with the NFL. In the pre-show, we talk a little bit about the Graham-Cassidy Bill, which is hopefully defunct by the time you hear this. But can Trump save it via Executive Order? (No.) Then, we return for a lengthy "Andrews Were Wrong!" segment in which we issue a correction from Episode 107, explain the difference between Ronnie Lott and Leon Lett, and also tackle friend of the show Andrew Seidel's recent article regarding whether churches will likely receive FEMA relief in the wake of the Trinity Lutheran decision. In the main segment, Andrew looks at the Supreme Court's recent order in Tharpe v. Warden and explains the significance in light of our prior discussion of jury deliberations. Before you listen to "Yodel Mountain," you'll want to go back and listen to Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail on Donald Trump's rocky relationship with the NFL. Then, we answer whether Donald Trump violated federal law by threatening NFL players who refuse to stand for the national anthem & some other questions. You'll find out which senators oppose "State-Sponsored Patriotism" and the answer WILL surprise you! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #43 about whether a "Letter of Intent" is binding in a business sale. (Oooh, right in Andrew's professional wheelhouse!) Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances After being bombarded by 10,000 Twitter trolls, the guys are going to lay low for a little bit. Show Notes & Links We discussed the first GOP effort to repeal the AHCA back in Episode 80, and you can read about the changes to that bill (largely, to the slush fund) in this Bloomberg article. This CNN report suggested that Trump would "do an Executive Order" when Graham-Cassidy fails. If you want to read the trial court's ruling on ineffective assistance of counsel in the Syed case, you can do so. We first discussed whether churches will receive FEMA funds for disaster relief in Episode 102; Andrew Seidel respectfully disagreed with that conclusion in a recent article; we continue to think he's too optimistic in light of the Trinity Lutheran decision. We discussed Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado as a "landmark case" way back in Episode 56. You can read the Supreme Court's order staying execution in Tharpe v. Warden, as well as the District Court's opinion denying reopening of Tharpe's habeas petition. We're really proud of the episodes we did on the USFL v. NFL lawsuit back in Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail as to exactly why Trump hates the NFL (and so much more)! The relevant statute at issue with Trump threatening the NFL is 18 U.S.C. § 227. That "LawNewz" article we referenced is here; read at your own risk! Finally, we definitely recommend reading the McCain-Flake report on "paid patriotism." Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
29-9-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 5 seconden
OA107: Adnan Syed Obviously Did It (Also: You Can Learn About Patents!)
Today's super-sized show -- at long last! -- discusses season 1 of the Serial podcast. Even if you haven't heard Serial, we think you'll enjoy this application of the principles of reasonable doubt. We begin with a discussion of the recent settlement between Evergreen College and Bret Weinstein. Why does Andrew say this means the college valued Weinstein's alleged $3.8 million lawsuit at zero? In the main segment, Andrew goes through some of the issues behind the Serial and Undisclosed podcasts related to the Adnan Syed case. Next, Andrew does a mini-deep dive on patent law by looking at a strange recent deal between Allergan and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. What in the world do these two entities have in common? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #42 regarding authentication of evidence. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 11 of the Reasonable Risk podcast; go check it out! Show Notes & Links Andrew quoted extensively from State v. Earp, 319 Md. 156, 170-172 (1990) on witness coaching. This is Allergan's press release regarding their deal to sell the patents to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. The two relevant sections from the U.S. Code relating to inter partes review are 35 USC § 102 (“no prior art”) and 35 USC § 103 (“non-obvious”). This IP website has a brief discussion of the Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group case in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the inter partes review process is constitutional. The two recent patent cases discussed in the "C" segment are Covidien, LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (Jan. 25, 2017) and NeoChord v. University of Maryland, Baltimore (May 23, 2017). For a refresher on sovereign immunity, you might want to check out Opening Arguments Episode #90. Finally, don't forget to check out and join the Opening Arguments Facebook Community! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
26-9-2017 • 1 uur, 26 minuten, 26 seconden
OA 106: Elections Have Consequences! Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders & the DNC Lawsuit
In this episode, we discuss a number of political stories making the rounds. First, "Yodel Mountain" returns with a look at the recent CNN story showing that the FBI obtained a FISA court warrant for Paul Manafort. Does this mean Trump's complaints about Obama "wiretapping" his campaign are true? Listen and find out! In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the recent ruling dismissing out the class action claims against the Democratic National Committee ostensibly by Bernie Sanders supporters. Find out what's really going on! Next, we answer a listener question from Patrick Hager about whether Congress can really overrule the Supreme Court. Learn civics with us! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #42 about whether an expert witness can authenticate crucial pieces of evidence. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 11 of the Reasonable Risk podcast; go check it out! Show Notes & Links This is 50 U.S.C. § 1805, which governs FISA court warrants. You can read the Wall Street Journal article on how FISA warrants are "rubber-stamped" by clicking here. And this is the CNN report indicating that Manafort's investigation had been reopened by the FBI. DON'T CLICK ON THIS Observer link! Here is a link to the original lawsuit filed against the DNC. This is the DNC's Charter and Bylaws, which contain Article 5, Section 4. Here is the transcript of oral argument on April 25, 2017. This is the Wymbs v. Republican State Executive Committee of Florida decision discussed on the show. Here is the link to Jared Beck's appearance on InfoWars. And this is Elizabeth Lee Beck's interview with WorldNet Daily. Finally, this is the link to the court's ruling. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
22-9-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 27 seconden
OA105: More Gay Wedding Cakes
Today's show discusses everyone's favorite non-issue: whether bigots who bake cakes for a living can discriminate against gays. We begin with a lightning round of questions taken from the Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! In the main segment, we break down Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Next, we explain the recent pronouncement by Donald Trump regarding enforcement of the Magnitsky Act. Are we scaling Yodel Mountain? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #41 regarding direct and circumstantial evidence in the context of a murder investigation and a shoeprint left at the scene. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! We answer a question about the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; we first discussed the CRA back in Episode 61. Our next lightning round question is about revenge porn, which we first discussed in Episode 87, and the relevant statute is Cal. PEN § 647(j)(4). We end the lightning round with a question about the Apple X phone drawn from this article in Slate. You can click here to read the Appellees' brief in opposition to certiorari in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. This is the text of the Magnitsky Act; and this is the memorandum issued by the Trump White House. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
19-9-2017 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 40 seconden
OA104: Equifax, Class Actions, Sham Marriages & Redistricting!
Our jam-packed "breaking news" episode covers some of the biggest stories trending at the moment, including the Equifax breach. First, Closed Arguments returns by tackling a proposal from friend of the show Eli Bosnick, who asks -- in light of Trump's repeal of DACA -- whether we can't just marry off the 800,000 program participants. We can't; listen and find out why. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the Equifax data breach, the pending class-action lawsuits, and all of the key legal issues. He even weighs in on the "chat bot" that some are saying will file your suit for you! Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about the Supreme Court's recent gerrymandering decision. Finally, we end with a new (and possibly too-easy!) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #41 about the admissibility of footprint and shoe evidence. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links "Adjustment of status" is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1255, and sham marriages are prohibited by 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c). This is the Oregon lawsuit filed against Equifax. Class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here is a link to Equifax's statement regarding the website TOC issued in response to NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's inquiry. We previously discussed political gerrymandering (including the "Wisconsin case") in episode 54, and racial gerrymandering and Cooper v. Harris in episode 72. This is a link to the Supreme Court's one-sentence 5-4 order in Abbott v. Perez staying the lower court's decision, and this is a link to that case, Perez v. Abbott, SA-11-CV-360 (Aug. 15, 2017). Please remember to sign up for the Opening Arguments Facebook Community! We'd love to see you there! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
15-9-2017 • 1 uur, 19 minuten, 1 seconde
OA103: We Defend Trump, Part 2!
Today's show discusses the Trump budget, scientist Kevin Folta's defamation lawsuit, and the recent debt ceiling deal struck between Trump and Democrats. In the wake of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the guys encourage you to donate to either (or both) the Red Cross and/or Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. If you do, please post your receipt on Facebook for a chance to win an Opening Arguments t-shirt. We begin with a great question from British listener David Cartwright about the Trump presidency -- and the answer will surprise you! In the main segment, the guys break down Kevin Folta's defamation lawsuit in which he alleges that the New York Times defamed him by publishing a "hit piece" implying that he's in the pocket of Monsanto. Next, we explain the practical and political ramifications of the debt ceiling agreement. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #40 regarding jury instructions and the presumption of intent. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links This is a link to the Red Cross's page for donations for hurricane relief; and here is a link to Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. Find out how to win a T-shirt from us by clicking here. Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! This is the full list of all 54 bills that Donald Trump has signed into law. Here is a link to S.442, the $19.5 billion NASA 2017 budget. For comparison, this is the NASA press release detailing the agency's 2016 budget. Click here to read Kevin Folta's lawsuit against the New York Times (which contains the original article as an exhibit). Finally, the debt ceiling is codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3101. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
12-9-2017 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 27 seconden
OA102: The Utah Nurse, DACA, & Disaster Relief
This week's "breaking news" episode covers three of the biggest stories trending at the moment: the Utah nurse who was arrested for standing up for her patient's rights; Trump's repeal of DACA; and churches suing for relief funds. In the wake of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the guys encourage you to donate to either (or both) the Red Cross and/or Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. We begin with the story behind the arrest of Alex Wubbels, the Utah nurse who refused to take and turn over her patient's blood to the police. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through President Trump's directive to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Does Andrew actually agree with a legal opinion authored by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III?? Listen and find out! Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about churches suing for funds allocated to disaster relief and recovery. Is the Friendly Atheist right when he says such a case is legally distinct from the precedent set by Trinity Lutheran v. Comer? Finally, we end with a fiendishly difficult and all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #40 about jury instructions regarding the presumption of intent. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links This is a link to the Red Cross's page for donations for hurricane relief; and here is a link to Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! You can read the relevant Supreme Court opinion, Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016), that Nurse Wubbels relied upon in refusing to take and turn over blood to the police. The guys first discussed illegal immigration on Episode 52 and then again in Episode 67. This is the original June 15, 2012 Napolitano DHS memo that became DACA. This the text of the recent memorandum by Attorney General Sessions rescinding DACA. The DAPA case relied upon by Sessions is Texas v. US, 86 F.Supp.3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015). We first analyzed the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision (along with Andrew Seidel) in Episode 82. Previously, we discussed Trinity Lutheran while the case was still pending during our three-part “You Be The Supreme Court” series: Part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, Part 2 is available here, and Part 3 is available here. This is the Friendly Atheist article discussed during the "C" segment attempting to distinguish Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
8-9-2017 • 1 uur, 18 minuten, 40 seconden
OA101: DreamHost and Free Speech
Today's show discusses the free speech issues surrounding the Trump administration issuing a search warrant to DreamHost in connection with its hosting of a website critical of the Trump administration. We begin, however, with the triumphant return of "CLOSED ARGUMENTS" -- this time, examining a truly insane claim being made by Ron Paul supporters and other nutballs who think that the Washington Metro Safety Commission overturns the Fourth Amendment. (It doesn't.) In the main segment, we delve into all the intricacies of the DreamHost search warrant and what it means for us as internet users. Next, the guys tackle a "hypothetical" question about conspiracy that just might take place on Yodel Mountain. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #39 regarding hearsay testimony. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The text of House Joint Res. 76 can be found here. If you're a masochist, you can read the truly insane "ZeroHedge" post that totally misconstrues the law here. This is a copy of the initial search warrant served on DreamHost. And here is a link to all of DreamHost's discussion of their responses to the search warrant. Finally, here is a link to the Washington Post article describing various Inauguration Day riots. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
5-9-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 21 seconden
OA100: Trump's Trans Ban & Arpaio Pardon
This week's "breaking news" episode covers two of the biggest Trump stories right now: the ban on trans soldiers in the military, and the President's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. First, though, we begin with the seldom-necessary "Andrew Was Wrong" segment. The less said about this, the better. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through President Trump's directive to the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security regarding transgender servicemembers, as well as the lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging the directive. Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about the Joe Arpaio pardon. Is it legal? Does it make him civilly liable? Does it erase his prior convictions? Can he now be forced to testify? Listen and find out. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #39 about the admissibility of a criminal defendant's prior statement. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the Trump memorandum directing the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security regarding trans servicemembers. This is he lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging that directive. Here is the Martin Redish New York Times article initially entitled "Why Trump Can't Pardon Arpaio." This is a paper by Stephen Greenspan, Ph.D., listing posthumous pardons that I used for research in this epsiode. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
1-9-2017 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 12 seconden
OA99: Q&A Extravaganza!
Today's show is an hour-plus-long question & answer session answers some (but not all!) of the 110 questions our Patrons submitted on this thread. As always, Andrew has no advance knowledge of these questions and answers everything off the cuff! After the Q&A, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #38 regarding the admissibility of prior consistent statements. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
29-8-2017 • 1 uur, 12 minuten, 29 seconden
OA98: More Sovereign Citizen Madness!
If you or anyone you know has ever cared what color the fringe on the U.S. flag is, you will not want to miss this episode. Yes, by popular request, we once again tackle the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizen loons! First, though, the guys read a listener comment from Tony Wall who actually toured with KISS (!!) and can give us some insight as to Gene Simmons's copyright practices. In the main segment, Andrew walks through Gray v. Texas, a 2009 decision of the Texas Court of Appeals that delightfully debunks a great many "sovereign citizen" claims. Next, the guys answer a question from Revan, who wants to know whether criminal and civil cases wind up in the same courtroom or even in front of the same judge. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #38 about the admissibility of prior consistent statements by a witness. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Show Notes & Links You will absolutely want to read Gray v. Texas! And here is a link to the David Hall DUI hearing in which the judge delightfully deals with sovereign citizen nonsense. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
25-8-2017 • 54 minuten, 4 seconden
OA97: What Can Your Employer Fire You For?
Today's show deals with a number of issues that all surround what your employer can (and cannot) fire you for. First, we begin by revisiting the "Google manifesto" topic from Opening Arguments Episode #94 as Thomas and Andrew respond to some hate mail from a listener who no longer wants to listen to the show after that episode. Does he have a point? Listen and find out. Next, the guys break down whether employees can discuss their salaries with co-workers on the job. After that, Andrew and Thomas answer a question from Patron April who wants to know how much an employer can control your social media use. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #37 regarding installment contracts. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed the "Google manifesto" during Opening Arguments Episode #94. You can read that Google manifesto referred to during that episode as well. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 can be found at 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. This is the text of President Obama's 2014 EO directing non-retaliation against government employees who discuss their compensation. This is the NLRB's collection of findings regarding social media. Here is a link to Three D, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, the Second Circuit case referred to during the "C" segment. Here is a link to Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which explains the answer to #TTTBE. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
22-8-2017 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 1 seconde
OA96: Understanding Charlottesville
Today's special episode devotes all three segments to the tragedy in Charlottesville, VA. First, the guys answer a question regarding the police declaration that the Unite the Right rally as an "unlawful gathering" right before the scheduled start time, illustrating the principles of time, place, and manner restrictions. During the main segment, Andrew breaks down the law of hate speech and also explains the charges filed against the individual who drove his car into the protestors. After that, Andrew answers another listener question, this one regarding Texas A&M's decision to cancel a "White Lives Matter" rally in light of the tragedy in Charlottesville. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #37 about the failure to timely pay on an installment contract. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode #15 of the Right to Reason podcast, arguing politics and whether your vote can be a message. Show Notes & Links Our discussion with Travis Wester regarding the Berkeley College Republicans lawsuit took place back in Opening Arguments Episode #73. You might want to re-listen! This is a link to the Vox timeline of the events in Charlottesville. Here is Washington Post reporter Joe Heim's Twitter feed, showing a picture of the heavily armed "citizens" attending the rally. This is the preliminary injunction ruling on the motion filed by Jason Kessler, organizer of the "Unite the Right" rally. The key case setting forth the principles of time, place & manner restrictions is Ward v. Rock Against Racism 491 U.S. 781 (1989). The "fire in a crowded theater" case is Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) -- give it a read and you'll understand (and appreciate!) why it is no longer good law. The modern rule on hate speech stems from Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). This is the DOJ's list of hate crimes laws. Virginia's second-degree murder statute is Code of VA § 18.2-32. You can read Texas A&M University's statement cancelling the "White Lives Matter" protest scheduled for Sept. 11 here. You can also check out Andrew's rockin' 1980s case, Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
18-8-2017 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 57 seconden
OA95: The Great SIO Crossover & We Defend Milo!
Today's show is a companion to Episode 67 of Serious Inquiries Only regarding the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. We begin, however, with a question about progressivity and fines from listener Noah Lugeons. In the main segment, Andrew tells the story of how Michael Dukakis, Slayer, and race-baiting by Newt Gingrich led to the worst aspects of the omnibus crime bill. Next, the guys cover perhaps their most anticipated "Breakin' Down the Law" ever: defending Milo Yiannopoulos, along with the ACLU. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #36 regarding defamation. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode #15 of the Right to Reason podcast, arguing politics and whether your vote can be a message. Show Notes & Links You should be listening to Serious Inquiries Only. This is the text of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This is the longitudinal Gallup study showing the last 80 years of support for the death penalty. And here is the draft of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU against WMATA on behalf of Milo, PETA, and a family planning company. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
15-8-2017 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 33 seconden
OA94: Geoff Blackwell, Trump's Anti-Trans Tweets & the Google Manifesto
In today's episode, we interview Geoffrey Blackwell from the American Atheists Legal Center. First, the guys break down the recent lawsuit filed by two LGBTQ advocacy organizations challenging President Trump's tweets regarding transgender service in the military. During the main segment, we ask Geoff what the AALC does, what kinds of cases are on his plate, and whether Trinity Lutheran v. Comer is as bad as we think it is. After that, Andrew answers a question from listener Thomas S. regarding Google's firing of an employee who wrote a bizarre, 10-page anti-woman manifesto. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #36 about defamation. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Give Geoff's podcast, All Too Common Law, a listen! Here is a link to the Doe v. Trump lawsuit filed Aug. 9, 2017 challenging Trump's tweets. This is the Slate piece calling the lawsuit "ingenious"; Andrew disagrees. And this is the (weird) Mattis internal DOD memo about "ethics" to which the guys refer during the show. Finally, this is the Google manifesto referred to during the "C" segment of the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
11-8-2017 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 1 seconde
OA93: Affirmative Action (& The Best Legal Brief Ever Written)
Today's show is a deep dive into the current Constitutional status of affirmative action in higher education. We begin, however, with a question about Donald Trump from conservative listener Sage Scott. Is it really a big deal to just listen to the Russians? Couldn't you just pay them if their stuff turns out to be useful? No. The answer is no. In the main segment, the guys outline the current state of the law of affirmative action in higher education as set forth in Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"), and what that means in light of the Trump Administration's recent comments that it plans to focus DOJ resources on challenging college admission programs that (supposedly) disadvantage white people. Next, in a follow-up to the John Oliver defamation lawsuit we discussed in Episode 84, "Closed Arguments" returns with a dissection of the best legal brief ever written, an amicus curiae brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts of the ACLU of West Virginia in support of Oliver. Andrew tries to contain his jealousy. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #35 regarding a physician's duty regarding releasing patients who are a danger to themselves or others. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew had a busy week! He was on the follow shows: Episode #17 of the Squaring the Strange podcast Episode #14 of the Odd Atheist Friends podcast; and Episode #113 of the Utah Outcasts podcast. Show Notes & Links Here is a link to 52 U.S.C. § 30121, which you can read for yourself plainly prohibits virtually all contact between foreign nationals and any candidate for federal, state, or even local office. You can read the August 1, 2017 New York Times story on how the Trump Administration plans to challenge affirmative action in college admissions here. The most recent Supreme court case on affirmative action in higher education is Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"); Andrew also referenced Fisher I, 133 S.Ct. 2411 (2013). We first discussed Bob Murray's defamation lawsuit against John Oliver in Episode #84, and you can read the ACLU's outstanding amicus brief here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
8-8-2017 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 54 seconden
OA92: The Unfortunate Application of Statutes of Limitation and Davino Watson
In today's episode, Andrew reluctantly -- but definitively -- opines that the Second Circuit got the law right in dismissing out the claims of Davino Watson, who argued that he was falsely imprisoned by the U.S. government for 3 1/2 years. In the pre-show segment, Andrew briefly introduces new FBI Director Christopher Wray as a good nominee by Donald Trump. After that, the guys tackle a follow-up question to Episode #91; namely, isn't "sexual orientation" already a protected class? Doesn't the law just prohibit discrimination in general? (No.) In our main segment, Andrew explains why statutes of limitation are necessary and why the Second Circuit got it right in dismissing out Watson's false imprisonment claim even though the circumstances are awful. Next, the guys break down Rod Wheeler's defamation lawsuit against Fox News. Why is this part of Yodel Mountain? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all-new (and fiendishly hard!) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #35 about a hospital's duty to third parties when releasing a patient with homicidal ideation. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew had a busy week! He was on the follow shows: Episode #17 of the Squaring the Strange podcast Episode #14 of the Odd Atheist Friends podcast; and Episode #113 of the Utah Outcasts podcast. Show Notes & Links You can listen to the original discussion of anti-discrimination in employment in Episode #91, as well as read the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. This is the trial court's decision in Watson v. U.S. (EDNY 2016), as well as the Second Circuit's decision from Sept. 1, 2017. Here is the Complaint filed by Rod Wheeler against Fox News. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
4-8-2017 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 10 seconden
OA91: More Sex (& Also Asset Forfeiture)
For today's show, we revisit the topic first discussed in Opening Arguments Episode #60, namely, whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of "sex" implicitly extends to prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" as well. First, however, fan favorite "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with an explanation of civil and criminal asset forfeiture and a new policy announced by Attorney General (for now) Jeff Sessions. In the main segment, we contrast the amicus brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in Zarda v. Altitude Express with the 7th Circuit's opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. Find out why your government just submitted a brief arguing that employers have the right to hang a sign that says "no homosexuals need apply." After that, Patron Jordan Keith explains a bit more about the TOR browser as a follow-up to Opening Arguments Episode #88's discussion of U.S. v. Matish. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #34 regarding the rape shield law, FRE 412. Listen and find out if Thomas makes it back to .500! And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was just a guest on Episode 15 of Molly Unmormon's "Doubting Dogma" podcast -- give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The relevant statutes for asset forfeiture are 18 U.S.C. § 983 and 21 U.S.C. § 853, and you can also read the 2015 Holder memorandum prohibiting "adoptive forfeitures" by clicking here. We first discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana in Episode #60. And here is the link to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Here is a link to the U.S.'s amicus curiae brief in Zarda v. Altitude Express. This is the text of the opinion in U.S. v. Matish, which we first discussed in Episode #88. And finally, you can read Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
1-8-2017 • 59 minuten, 57 seconden
OA90: Pardon Me? Yes, Donald Trump Can Pardon Himself
In today's episode, Andrew definitively opines that the Presidential pardon power includes the right to self-pardon. We begin, however, with "Andrew Was Wrong." This time, he was wrong about Thor Heyerdahl, but right about the fate of Ken Ham's Ark Encounter. In our main segment, the guys analyze the recent claims by Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter, and Norm Eisen that Donald Trump does not have the power to pardon himself and find it less than persuasive. Next, Andrew briefly discusses the legality of Trump's tweet regarding transgender individuals serving in the military. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #34 about introducing a rape victim's sexual history into evidence. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew's talk before the Lehigh Valley Humanists is now up on YouTube. Show Notes & Links We first discussed AIG's Ark Encounter land sale in Opening Arguments episode #88. This is the press release from Answers in Genesis regarding their Ark Encounter fraud, and here is one news account of how the City suspended the tax breaks for the Ark Encounter and the subsequent revocation of the sale. This is the Tribe/Painter/Eisen article in the Washington Post arguing that Trump doesn't have the power to pardon himself. Here is a link to the 1974 Lawton memo. This is a link to the Autobiography of Charles Biddle; you'll want to turn to page 306-08 for the Aaron Burr story. This is "The Law as King and the King as Law" from the Hastings Law Quarterly 20:7. Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974). Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). Here is a link to Gov. Stevens's self-pardon in 1856. This is a link to Mayor James G. Woodward's self-pardon for public drunkenness in 1901. Finally, this is the Newsweek article referenced on the show that discusses self-pardons. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
28-7-2017 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 56 seconden
OA89: The "W" is Silent - Powlitics & Mwedia with Northpod Law UK
Today's show features an in-depth interview with Kirstin Beswick and Ben Knight of NorthPod Law UK, often referred to (by us) as the "Opening Arguments of England." Join all four of us as we discuss media, politics, Brexit, and maybe -- just maybe -- reasons for optimism about the future of politics. Due to the length of the interview, we don't have any other segments, but we do end, as always, with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #33 regarding reasonable suspicion to search an auto after a traffic stop. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can check out NorthPod UK's blog by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
25-7-2017 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 8 seconden
OA88: Noah's Ark & How Private Is The Stuff You Do On Your Computer?
In today's episode, we discuss a recent court case involving an individual's expectation of privacy while browsing the Internet. We begin, however, with the question so many of our listeners wanted to know: Is it legal for Ken Ham to sell his Ark Encounter theme park to his own non-profit ministry in a presumed effort to evade taxes? In our main segment, the guys break down a recent court case involving search & seizure over the internet. Do you have an expectation of privacy for the stuff you do on your computer? The answer will surprise you. Next, Yodel Mountain returns with an in-depth examination of what it means to be a "thing of value." Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #33 about search and seizure, coincidentally enough. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Schedule us to appear on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is the article from the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader on the sale of the Ark Park land. This is a link to the U.S. v. Matish decision discussed during the main segment. The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121, which prohibits a foreign national from giving any "thing of value" to a candidate for public office. The two cases Andrew discussed interpreting that phrase "thing of value" are U.S. v. Schwartz, 763 F. 2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1985) and U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 941 F. Supp. 1262 (D.D.C. 1996). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
21-7-2017 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 50 seconden
OA87: Revenge Porn & Parol Evidence
For today's show, we take a deep dive into the law of contracts, featuring the "parol evidence" rule. First, however, we answer a question from special listener Lydia S. who wants to know all about Blac Chyna, Rob Kardashian, and "revenge porn." YOU asked for it! In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas discuss what you can and can't do to dispute a written contract. Next, Garry Myers asks us about why law firms are all structured as partnerships. Again, the answer might surprise you!. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #32 regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Listen and find out if Thomas makes it back to .500! And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can check out California's "revenge porn" law, Penal Code - PEN § 647(j)(4), by clicking here. And this is the Los Angeles Times article detailing Kamala Harris's first successful prosecution under the law back when she was California's Attorney General. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
18-7-2017 • 1 uur, 51 seconden
OA86: If Donald Trump, Jr. Commits Treason, Is It A Mini-Yodel?
In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over Donald Trump, Jr.'s contact with Russian officials during the 2016 election. We begin, however, with a follow-up from Dave (and others) who asked us about doxxing. In our main segment, the guys break the law of conspiracy to discuss whether Donald Trump Jr.'s conduct is potentially criminal. (Spoiler: Yes.) Next, fan favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" returns with a question about taxation without representation. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #32 about Section 1983 claims and acting under "color of law." Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! But you can come join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017! Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links You can read Sarah Jeong's excellent article, "Stop Diluting the Defintion of Dox," here. This is 18 U.S. Code § 371, the federal conspiracy statute. And here is a link to the Cockrum, Comer & Schoenberg complaint. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
14-7-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten
OA85: More with Andrew Seidel on Trinity Lutheran & the First Amendment
For today's show, we dive deeper into the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. First, however, we answer a question from Patron Christopher Arguin regarding cross-examination that was inspired by TTTBE #30. In the main segment, Andrew and Andrew continue to discuss church-state separation and the First Amendment. Next, our friend Seth Barrett Tillman provides us with an update on the CREW v. Trump lawsuit regarding emoluments. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #31 regarding the Statute of Frauds. Listen and find out if Thomas's improbable one-question winning streak will continue -- and don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances None! But this is your last chance to join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017! Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links We first spoke with Andrew Seidel regarding Trinity Lutheran during Episode 82. Here is a link to the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision. We first discussed Trinity Lutheran during our three-part "You Be The Supreme Court" series; part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, part 2 is available here, and part 3 is available here. This is the letter that the Missouri Attorney General sent indicating that, post-election, Missouri would change its policy. Finally, please check out Andrew Seidel's great work at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
11-7-2017 • 1 uur, 30 minuten, 33 seconden
OA84: #CNNBlackmail, John Oliver's lawsuit, and more on Maajid Nawaz
In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over CNN's handling of a Redditor who posted a Trump meme online. Is this really "blackmail" by CNN? We begin, however, with a follow-up from Patron Joerg regarding UK laws on personal jurisdiction/long-arm and defamation. Could Maajid Nawaz (whose potential lawsuit we discussed in Episode #83) really file against the SPLC in the UK after all? In our main segment, the guys break down CNN's conduct and see if it qualifies as blackmail, extortion, conspiracy to deprive an individual of his Constitutional rights, or any other criminal behavior. Next, by great popular demand, we tackle Bob Murray's lawsuit against John Oliver in connection with his report on "Last Week Tonight." You won't be surprised by our evaluation of the merits, but you will enjoy reading the Complaint! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #31 about the Statute of Frauds. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! But you can come join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017! Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the 2013 UK Defamation Act. This is the 2010 SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. § 4102. And here is the SPLC's report on Maajid Nawaz labelling him an "anti-Muslim extremist.". This is 18 U.S.C. § 873, the federal blackmail statute. Here is a link to an informative Washington Post article about the CNN/HanAssholeSolo debacle. And here is a link to the Ben Shapiro opinion piece in the National Review. This is a link to the lawsuit filed by Murray against Oliver, which is a delightful read. This link contains the original Oliver segment about Murray, which is definitely worth watching. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
7-7-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 7 seconden
OA83: Law of the Fourth of July! (and Maajid Nawaz)
In this special holiday episode, Andrew and Thomas talk about fireworks law across the U.S. Where can you go for a cherry-bombin' good time? Listen and find out! First, however, we take a look at Maajid Nawaz's threatened lawsuit against the SPLC. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas figure out the best place to set off bottle rockets. And after that, Andrew tackles another question from the patron-only Q&A mailbag. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Andrew Seidel) Take the Bar Exam Question #30 regarding cross-examination. Will Thomas and the practicing lawyer get it wrong? Listen and find out, and don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 14 of Habeas Humor, cracking lawyer-themed "yo mama" jokes. Check it out! Show Notes & Links This is the SPLC's report on Maajid Nawaz labelling him an "anti-Muslim extremist." Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
4-7-2017 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 54 seconden
OA82: Trinity Lutheran, Trump's Executive Order & More (w/guest Andrew Seidel)
For today's show, we break down the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. We begin, however, with a parenting question from Garrett Thomas Fox in our Super-Secret Patron-Only Q&A thread that didn't get answered on our patron-only special. In our main segment, Andrew Seidel helps explain what went wrong in the Trinity Lutheran case that Andrew confidently predicted would go 6-3 the other way. After that, we tackle the Supreme Court's recent decision staying the judgment in the 4th and 9th Circuits, which in turn had enjoined the enforcement of Executive Order 13780. What does all of this mean? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #30 about cross-examination, in which our guest Andrew Seidel plays along! Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 14 of Habeas Humor, cracking lawyer-themed "yo mama" jokes. Check it out! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision. We first discussed Trinity Lutheran during our three-part "You Be The Supreme Court" series; part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, part 2 is available here, and part 3 is available here. This is the letter that the Missouri Attorney General sent indicating that, post-election, Missouri would change its policy. Here is a link to the Supreme Court's decision allowing most of EO 13780 to go into effect. Finally, please check out Andrew Seidel's great work at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
30-6-2017 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 21 seconden
OA81: 😒😜🐿️😎 Emoji Law with Denise Howell (also: Voting Rights, Draft Kings, and FanDuel)
In this episode, Thomas and Andrew interview Denise Howell from the This Week in Law podcast. First, however, we take a look at the Supreme Court's recent decision denying certiorari in an appeal of a Fourth Circuit case striking down various provisions of a North Carolina law that restricted voting rights. There's a lot of misinformation going on, so you'll want to listen! In the main segment, Denise Howell breaks down the "law of emojis" and a 🐿️ time is had by all. After that, Breakin' Down the Law returns with the recent FTC decision to try and block the FanDuel-Draft Kings merger. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Denise) Take the Bar Exam Question #29 regarding assumption of risk. Will Thomas beat the practicing lawyer? Listen and find out, and don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances None. But if you're on the East Coast, you should check out Andrew's speech to the Lehigh Valley Skeptics on "Skepticism and the Law" on July 2, 2017 at 11 am by clicking here. Show Notes & Links This is the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, which is worth reading. The underlying case is NC State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F. 3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court's 2-line denial of the application to stay McCrory, 137 S.Ct. 27 (2016) is here. This is a link to the "American News X" (wrong) "hot take." You can read Prof. Eric Goldman's delightful law review article on emojis here. And Denise recommends falling down the Wikipedia rabbit hole by reading the history of emojis. This is the FTC complaint against Draft Kings and FanDuel. And here are a few links to articles by and about new FTC Acting Director of Bureau of Competition Tad Lipsky. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
27-6-2017 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 33 seconden
OA80: Flashback Friday (featuring Health Care, The Slants, and Gerrymandering!)
It's our first Flashback Friday! On today's episode, we revisit topics from previous episodes that are once again back in the news. We begin with the breaking-est of breaking news, the new Senate version of the AHCA that literally just got released right before the show was scheduled to record. What's in the new bill? Listen and find out! After that, our main segment goes through the recent Supreme Court victory for our friend Simon Tam of the Slants, who previewed this case for us way back on Episode 33. Find out what the ruling means and how it might impact future issues (like a certain D.C.-area football team). After that, we take a look at the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case we discussed back in Episode 54. What's the prognosis for whether the Supreme Court will finally do something about partisan gerrymandering? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas (and Denise) Take the Bar Exam Question #29, in which next week's guest, Denise Howell, joins the guys for a preview and plays along. Remember that you too can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s). Answers, as always, drop on Tuesday. Recent Appearances None. But if you're on the East Coast, you should check out Andrew's speech to the Lehigh Valley Skeptics on "Skepticism and the Law" on July 2, 2017 at 11 am by clicking here. Show Notes & Links Flash back to our first discussion with Simon Tam of the Slants on Episode 33, and keep groovin' with gerrymandering by listening to Episode 54. This is the text of the Senate's version of the AHCA. MACPAC's analysis of the ACA referenced on the show is here. This table shows the DSH allotment by state for 2016. Here is the full text of the Supreme Court's opinion in Matal v. Tam (formerly Lee v. Tam). Finally, here's the text of the Cooper v. Harris decision we discussed on Episode 72 that gives Andrew some cause for concern. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
23-6-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 4 seconden
OA79: The Thomas Was Right Show! (Featuring Climate Change and the Paris Accords)
In this episode, Thomas and Andrew break down the Trump Administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement regarding climate change. First, however, we celebrate Thomas being prescient in taking an in-depth look at the Ninth Circuit's rather surprising decision regarding Trump's EO 13780, the so-called "Muslim Ban." In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas answer some questions and bust some myths regarding the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Can Trump do that? Can the states pick up the slack? Is there one weird trick that will solve climate change? The answers may surprise you. After that, Andrew tackles a fun question from patron Myk Dowling about disclaimers. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #28, which involved a pizza joint defaming a nearby burger hut. Can Thomas start a new, 2-game winning streak? Listen and find out! And, as always, we'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday and answer that question the following Tuesday. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 390 of This Week in Law, throwin' down the devil horns. Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links You can read the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion here. This is the text of Executive Order 13780. This is the text of Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979), the odd case on whether a President can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty. This is a link to NASA's data regarding climate change. And this is the text of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the U.S. was a signatory in 1992. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
20-6-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 6 seconden
OA78: Jeff Sessions, "Preemptive Executive Privilege," & More on Emoluments
If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with Breakin' Down the Law, in which Andrew answers the question raised by every single person in the universe this week: can Jeff Sessions really do that? In our main segment, we look at the recent emoluments lawsuit brought by the Attorneys General for Maryland and Washington DC. After that, Yodel Mountain returns with a look at the Washington Post's breaking news that Donald Trump is under investigation by the FBI, as well as the GOP's purported talking points as to why this is no big deal. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #28 about a malicious pizza store owner. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on today's (6/16/2017) episode of This Week in Law, as well as on Episode 24 of the Scenic City Skeptics show. Check 'em out! Show Notes & Links We first discussed obstruction of justice in Episode #70, and analyzed the status of Executive Order 13780 in Episode #51. You can read the text of U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) here. Here is a link to the Maryland/DC complaint against Trump. And here is a link to Trump's motion to dismiss the CREW lawsuit. This is the Washington Post story breaking news of the investigation by the FBI into Trump. Here are the ostensible (and terrible) GOP "talking points" about the investigation. And this is the text of the Rosenstein order appointing Mueller as special counsel. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
16-6-2017 • 1 uur, 13 minuten, 29 seconden
OA77: Oh No Ross and Carrie (and Matthew!)
In this episode, Thomas and Andrew talk to the co-host of one of their favorite podcasts, Oh No Ross and Carrie, along with the show's lawyer, Matthew Strugar -- proving once and for all that other podcasts need lawyers, too. First, however, Andrew breaks down a recent viral story about whether Donald Trump's Twitter account can be a "designated public forum," a term our listeners should remember from Episode #73's discussion with Travis Wester. In the main segment, Carrie Poppy sits down for a fun and wide-ranging interview about her job and the potential legal perils that stem from investigating pseudoscience, the paranormal, and potentially dangerous religious cults. After that, the much-beloved "Are You A Cop?" segment returns with a question from listener Brian Babcock about how to deal with standard-form contracts. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #27, which was a complicated fact pattern involving drunk driving, punitive damages, insurance limits, and cross-examination. Did Thomas break his streak? Listen and find out. And, as always, we'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances: Andrew was just a guest on Episode #84 of the Cellar Door Skeptics Podcast; give it a listen here. Show Notes & Links Check out the Oh No Ross and Carrie podcast! This is the link to Matthew Strugar's law firm in California. If you want to brush up on the concept of a "designated public forum," you can revisit our discussion with Travis Wester in Episode #73 by clicking here. Here is the text of the Knight First Amendment Institute's letter to Donald Trump regarding Twitter. ...and here is the text of Davison v. Loudon County, 2017 WL 58294 (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2017), the case cited in the footnotes. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download Direct Download
13-6-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 12 seconden
OA76: "I Hope" James Comey's Senate Testimony Shows Obstruction of Justice
If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with the second installment of a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong. In this case, it's actually two things. First, Andrew clarifies the terminology related to immunity, and second, Andrew admits to falling for a hoax (!) In our main segment, we look at James Comey's testimony before the Senate regarding his firing. How far up Yodel Mountain does this take us? Listen and find out! After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an analysis of what's going on with the Trump Administration's appeal of Executive Order 13780, the so-called "Muslim Ban," which we last discussed in Episode #51. Finally, we end with a brand new (and tricky) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #27 about the admissibility of a question on cross-examination regarding the availability of insurance proceeds. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a recent guest on Episode #84 of the Cellar Door Skeptics podcast; give it a listen. Show Notes & Links We first discussed obstruction of justice in Episode #70, and analyzed the status of Executive Order 13780 in Episode #51. Snopes debunked the Berkeley Breathed letter here. The relevant obstruction statutes are 18 U.S.C § 1501 et seq. The two cases Andrew found that involve valid prosecutions for obstruction of justice where the defendant used the "I hope" construction in threatening a witness are U.S. v. Bedoy, 827 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2016) and U.S. v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2008). This is the text of Executive Order 13780. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
9-6-2017 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 25 seconden
OA75: Opening Arguments Über Alles (Understanding Non-Compete Clauses)
In this freewheeling episode, Andrew walks through a recent decision in California regarding a key employee who worked on self-driving cars and was recruited by a competitor. First, however, the guys talk about Episode #73's discussion with Travis Wester and what lessons hopefully we all can take away from it, including answering a listener question from Lyman Smith on how to go about finding primary sources. Next, the guys discuss "Mr. Met" and the doctrines of factual and legal impossibility. Can a four-fingered mascot really give anyone the "middle" finger?? In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the recent federal court opinion in California enjoining a former Waymo employee from working on Uber's self-driving car program, and along the way highlights the differences between non-compete clauses, non-solicitation clauses, and trade secrets. After that, Andrew tells a fun story in answering a listener question from Michael Grace regarding the craziest legal argument Andrew's ever heard. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #26 about composite sketches inspired by dead witnesses. We'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here's the Tweet from Darren Rovell that inspired our "A" segment. ..and here's the link to the Wikipedia entry on the Impossibility defense, as a good exercise in finding primary sources. This is the New York Times article about the Waymo lawsuit; and the actual lawsuit can be found here. Finally, you can revisit our lengthy discussion with Travis Wester in Episode #73 by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
6-6-2017 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 46 seconden
OA74: Sippin' #Covfefe With Trump's Severed Head
If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong. In this case, patron Sean Keehan corrects Andrew's numbers regarding Congressional votes. After that, we answer the actual legal question behind #covfefe -- namely, whether Donald Trump can delete his Tweets. The answer... might surprise you! In our main segment, we look at the ongoing Senate investigation regarding Trump's ties with Russia and break down the Congress's power to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas, and the reasons people can give for failing to comply with them. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with the question on everyone's lips: is it legal for Kathy Griffin to have posed with Donald Trump's severed head? Finally, we end with a brand new (and tricky) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about the admissibility of a composite sketch after the primary witness has unexpectedly died. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Andrew first made the erroneous claim regarding voting results in Episode #54 on Gerrymandering, and repeated it in Episode #72. Oops. The Presidential Records Act can be found at 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. The case establishing the inherent power of the Congress to issue investigations dating back to the McCarthy era is Wilkinson v. U.S., 365 U.S. 399 (1961). Finally, the landmark case establishing the applicable standard of "imminent incitement to lawless action" is Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
2-6-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 39 seconden
OA73: Berkeley, Ann Coulter, and Free Speech (w/guest Travis Wester)
In this episode, the guys engage in a discussion with actor Travis Wester, who criticized the show's coverage of the Berkeley College Republicans' lawsuit back in the "C" segment of Episode #65. Travis comes on the show to criticize Berkeley's policy regarding the imposition of fees, while Andrew walks us through the various laws regarding the First Amendment's applicability to "time, place, and manner" restrictions in college classrooms. This episode went long, so we skipped our other segments, but obviously no Tuesday episode would be complete without the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question #25 about smokin' weed and crashin' cars. Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here are the resources discussed in this episode: This is the link to the BCR/YAF (Ann Coulter) Complaint. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) is the Supreme Court case decisively holding that campus groups allocating space in classrooms are a limited public forum. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), is the landmark Supreme Court case on time, place, and manner restrictions. Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski, 643 F.Supp.2d 729 (D. Md. 2009) is the D.Md. case that is directly on point with a university that has the exact same policies as Berkeley. The authorizing regulation is 5 CCR § 100004. The 5th Circuit case to which Travis kept referring is Sonnier v. Crain, 613 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2010), the opinion of which was subsequently withdrawn in part by Sonnier v. Crain, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011). Finally, the Supreme Court case cited by Travis within the Sonnier opinion is Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), in which the Supreme Court held that content-based restrictions, including excessive security fees, violate the 1st Amendment. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
30-5-2017 • 1 uur, 40 minuten, 54 seconden
OA72: Body Slamming Journalists PLUS Political vs. Racial Gerrymandering
In this episode, we revisit what Andrew has called the worst problem in American politics: gerrymandering -- but this time with a twist. We begin, however, with a listener question from Anna Bosnick, who is also our special guest for Law'd Awful Movies #7 - Legally Blonde! Anna watched the movie and listened to our intro and wants to know: what exactly is habeas corpus, anyway? Then, we tackle the recent news about Montana Congressional candidate Greg "Body Slam" Gianforte. Can he really take office if he's convicted of assault? In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas walk through the recent Supreme Court decision in Cooper v. Harris and discuss what it might mean for the future of gerrymandering legislation. After that, Andrew answers another listener question, this one from the exceptionally prescient Garry Myers, who wants to know whether corporations can assert 5th Amendment rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about smoking pot and crashing cars. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! But check out our Law'd Awful Movies guest, Anna Bosnick, and her amazing ukulele work over at worthyfools.com. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to check out our prior Episode #54 on Gerrymandering. In the case of Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), Scalia opined that "of course" being actually innocent isn't grounds for habeas corpus relief, although that was walked back by the Supreme Court in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013). You can also check out the Cooper v. Harris decision here. Finally, the case discussed in the C segment is Hale v. Henkel, 204 U.S. 43 (1906). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
26-5-2017 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 3 seconden
OA71: Free Speech Left and Right (featuring the Grand Canyon)
In this episode, the guys address whether the political left or the political right is the biggest threat to freedom of speech in the United States. Their answer probably won't surprise you, but it will give you some ammunition during your next twitter fight with some dude with a Pepe the Frog icon. To tee up this subject, the guys examine the case of journalist Dan Heyman, who was just arrested (!) for trying to ask a question about the AHCA to a rather reluctant Tom Price, the guy who's Secretary of Health and Human Services and who's job description includes answering these kinds of questions. In the main segment, the guys compare the real threat to free speech with the latest complaint filed by our friends over at the Alliance Defending Freedom. This particular lawsuit was filed on behalf of creationist lunatic Andrew Snelling, who wants to steal rocks from the Grand Canyon so he can prove something something Jesus moon lasers something and therefore, the earth is only 6,000 years old. What you won't expect: Andrew actually praises this Complaint! Multiple times! After that, Andrew tackles a question from listener Thomas McCormick who -- perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek? -- wonders why churches are tax-exempt at all. In (not) answering the question, Andrew also points out some special benefits churches get under the tax code. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #24 about double hearsay. We'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances: None, but you should check out Thomas's other show, Serious Inquiries Only, and in particular episode #41 featuring Michael Shermer backpedaling on his the-left-is-killing-free-speech tweets and articles. Show Notes & Links Mediaite has the video and some contemporaneous tweets of the Heyman arrest. This is a copy of the Complaint the ADF filed on behalf of Andrew Snelling. Finally, two of the special statutes that benefit churches (and only churches) cited by Andrew in the "C" segment are 26 U.S.C. § 508(c) and 26 U.S.C. § 7611. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
23-5-2017 • 1 uur, 7 minuten, 23 seconden
OA70: Donald Trump & Obstruction of Justice - Are We at the Peak of Yodel Mountain?
This episode begins the switch to a new, more responsive format in which we are better able to cover breaking news within a day of its release. And, of course, what better way to kick off that format by addressing the most pressing topic of the moment: is Donald Trump guilty of obstruction of justice in his firing of James Comey in light of the recent evidence? We break it down for you with the help of a guest expert, Prof. Randall Eliason of the Sidebars blog. First, though, we continue our ascent up Yodel Mountain with the question as to whether it's legal for Donald Trump to surreptitiously record White House conversations (as Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently failed to deny). In the main segment, the guys turn to a former prosecutor and expert on public corruption and the obstruction of justice, Prof. Randall Eliason, and ask about the strengths and weaknesses of mounting a case against the President for obstruction of justice. After that, Andrew answers a question from Jake (the Fake Jake) who wants to know whether the President has immunity from civil lawsuits, as he's claimed. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #24 about hearsay-within-hearsay. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Check out Prof. Eliason's blog, Sidebars, and in particular the most recent post on this subject. Here is the link to the L.A. Times story about how Press Secretary Sean Spicer won't deny that President Trump is secretly taping White House conversations, and this is the link to the operative statute, § 23-542 of the D.C. Code. This is the text of Acting AG Rod Rosenstein's order appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel. The operative regulations governing the special counsel can be found at 28 CFR § 600.4 et seq. This is a link to the CNN story regarding Gen. Flynn's refusal to comply with the Senate's subpoena duces tecum. Finally, here is a link to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the Supreme Court case that established that Presidents do not have immunity from civil suit while in office. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
19-5-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 54 seconden
OA69: The Tuesday Massacre - Trump Sacks FBI Director James Comey
In this episode, the guys analyze the justification given by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for President Trump to fire former FBI Director James Comey. First, though, fan-favorite Yodelin' Trump returns with a related question from our listeners (including Kevin Hicks), who ask whether Trump's tweet about Sally Yates violated the law. In our main segment, Andrew breaks down the Rosenstein memo. Then, we answer a great listener question from Patron Ben Hatcher, who wants to know exactly what things are admissible in the record on appeal. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #23 about a class action breach-of-contract lawsuit against a scammer who sells your private information. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Thomas was recently a guest on Det. Matthew Maxon's new podcast, ______, and Andrew was recently a guest on Episode #116 of the Gaytheist Manifesto. Go check 'em out! Show Notes & Links This is the text of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, the statute that governs witness tampering. And this is the text of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's letter recommending the firing of Director Comey. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
16-5-2017 • 1 uur, 10 minuten, 18 seconden
OA68: Did Aaron Hernandez Cash In By Committing Suicide? (w/guest Chris Kristofco)
In this episode, the guys tackle a recent Internet meme regarding convicted murderer Aaron Hernandez's suicide with help from NFL expert and friend of the show Chris Kristofco of the Titletown Sound podcast. First, though, Andrew tackles a question from listener Joel Forman who asks whether Andrew can help secure him a "letter of marque." What is a letter of marque and why does Joel want one? Listen and find out! In the main segment, the guys break down the law regarding Aaron Hernandez's suicide. Does it really vacate Hernandez's conviction for murder? Are the Patriots really on the hook for $6 million? Is it all a big conspiracy? We tell the hard truths. After that, Andrew answers a question from Hall of Fame patron R.J. Rautio about an obscure procedural quirk in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Does this mean President Elizabeth Warren can kick Gorsuch off the Court in 2020?? Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #23 about a breach of contract lawsuit for stealing your personal information. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was recently a guest on Episode #116 of the Gaytheist Manifesto. Go check it out! Show Notes & Links Check out Chris Kristofco's fabulous podcast, Titletown Sound. This is the hilarious (and serious!) article from the Federalist Society's web page on bringing back letters of marque. No, seriously: a real person wrote this, unironically. This is the case of U.S. v. Pogue, 19 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the case Andrew discusses on the "abatement" rule during the main segment. And here is just one example of sports media claiming that abatement puts the Patriots back on the hook for Hernandez's salary. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
12-5-2017 • 59 minuten, 10 seconden
OA67: Trump's Executive Order on Religious Freedom
In this episode, the guys analyze the recent Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty. First, though, we discuss why the show rejected a potential sponsor. Next, we answer a great listener question from our (only?) conservative listener, "Dan Dan the Conservative Man." Dan wanted to know about the exclusionary rule, so-called "illegal" aliens, a recent Supreme Court decision, and how all of those things play in to "Sanctuary Cities." We think we answered this. In our main segment, Andrew breaks down the meaningless portions of the Trump EO and contrasts them with the Definitely Unconstitutional provision. Then, we answer another listener question, this one from Shane Argo, who wants to know about the legal and philosophical reasons for treating "attempted murder" differently than regular murder. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #22 about a buyer who finds a priceless artifact at a yard sale and knowingly buys it for a fraction of its true value. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links In Episode 52 of the show, we linked to this Facebook post by an immigration lawyer about the term "illegal" immigrant. We recommend you revisit both! Here is a link to Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), the case Dan asked about. This is the text of President Trump's Religious Liberty EO. And this is a link to David French's delightful article in the National Review complaining that Trump's EO doesn't go far enough. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
9-5-2017 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 19 seconden
OA66: Sanctuary Cities
In this episode, the guys break down the recent decision by a federal court to enjoin the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order 13768 regarding Sanctuary Cities. First, though, Andrew tackles a popular question from Brad Kalmanson (and others) as to whether Donald Trump can really make good on his weird threat to "break up" the 9th Circuit. The answer will almost certainly surprise you. In the main segment, we analyze the Sanctuary Cities Executive Order and the Trump Administration's rather amazing legal "strategy" they orchestrated to try and defend it. If you have Trump supporters in your news feed (or are one yourself!), you'll be amazed at what the administration did. After that, Andrew answers an in-person question from David at ReasonCon about the practice of law. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #22 about selling a priceless work of art. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links This is a nice primer on the creation of the current federal judiciary, beginning with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. Here is a link to the decision by the Northern District of California enjoining the enforcement of EO 13768. This link is to the text of EO 13768. And this is 8 U.S.C. § 1373, referenced in the EO. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
5-5-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 36 seconden
OA65: How "Net Neutrality" Became "Selling the Internet" - A Choose-Your-Own Adventure, Part 2 (Plus Ann Coulter!)
In this episode, Thomas continues his choose-your-own-adventure in which we discover how two well-meaning efforts to protect privacy on the Internet somehow left us with the "Selling The Internet" Bill, S.J.R. 34. We also tackle the wackiest of wacky lawsuits, starring everyone's favorite Internet troll, Ann Coulter. First, though, Andrew assigns homework to the listeners for the very first time, previewing what will be an in-depth discussion of the recent Federal Court order granting injunctive relief and blocking President Trump's "Sanctuary Cities" executive order. Then, we return to our story from Friday's show, unraveling the connections between the FCC, the FTC, Internet Privacy, and the Republican Congress. After that, we discuss the Berkeley College Republicans' lawsuit against the school in connection with Milo Yiannopolous and Ann Coulter. Is this lawsuit as hilarious as it seems? (Yes. Yes it is.) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Phil!) Take the Bar Exam Question #21 about a state choosing first to recognize gay marriage and then trying to repeal it via a ballot initiative. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a guest on Episode 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the decision by the Northern District of California enjoining the enforcement of EO 13768 that Andrew assigned as homework. This is the single sentence text of S.J.R. 34. And these are the 2016 FCC Internet Privacy rules (all 399 pages!) that S.J.R. 34 overturned. This is the earlier 2010 Open Internet Order promulgated by the FCC... ...and this is Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which struck down those rules. And this is the case of FTC v. AT&T Mobility, a 2016 decision from the 9th Circuit, discussed in depth in this episode. Finally, this is a link to the text of the Berkeley College Republican/Ann Coulter lawsuit, which is some truly hilarious reading. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
2-5-2017 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 7 seconden
OA64: How "Net Neutrality" Became "Selling the Internet" - A Choose-Your-Own Adventure, Part 1
In this episode, Thomas begins a choose-your-own-adventure in which two well-meaning trains collide, producing the so-called "Selling The Internet" Bill, S.J.R. 34. How did this happen? First, though, Andrew revisits a very difficult TTTBE question (#18), and answers a question from long-standing friend of the show Eric Brewer about the differences between a corporation and an LLC. In the main segment, Thomas gets to choose between the well-meaning FCC and the well-meaning FTC in boarding his doomed train. Choose along with Thomas and figure out where we're headed! After that, Closed Arguments looks at the Fearless Girl statue and moral rights associated with copyright. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #21 about repealing gay marriage. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a guest on Episode 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links This is the single sentence text of S.J.R. 34. And these are the 2016 FCC Internet Privacy rules (all 399 pages!) that S.J.R. 34 overturned. This is the earlier 2010 Open Internet Order promulgated by the FCC... ...and this is Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which struck down those rules. This is the case we discuss in depth in this part of the story. And, as a special hint to our listeners who read the show notes, Part 2 of this story airing next week will focus on the case of FTC v. AT&T Mobility, a 2016 decision from the 9th Circuit. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
28-4-2017 • 1 uur, 7 seconden
OA63: Saving Money For College Is For Suckers! (with Phil Ferguson)
In this episode of Opening Arguments, Andrew and Thomas invite on Phil Ferguson, host of the cleverly-titled Phil Ferguson Show, to discuss why only suckers save money for college. First, Andrew discusses the scuttlebutt surrounding whether Ivy Tech will appeal the decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that the guys discussed in Episode 60. After that, we look at the best(?) potential educational bill that might come before Donald Trump's desk: H.R. 529, which would make modest expansions to so-called "529" college savings plans. This, of course, is to set up our "C" segment, in which the guys interview Phil Ferguson and find out what he really thinks of 529 plans in specific and saving for college in general. How clickbaity is our episode title? You'll have to listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #20 about whether a law prohibiting hiring those undergoing drug treatment or with prior drug convictions would violate the equal protection clause. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was also a guest on Episode 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links So-called "529 plans" are governed by 26 U.S.C. § 529, which you can read here. You can see the text of H.R. 592 (no relation) by clicking this link as well as read the endorsement from The Hill here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Image courtesy of CheapFullCoverageAutoInsurance.com
25-4-2017 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 25 seconden
OA62: The Supreme Court's Hall of Shame
In this episode, Andrew goes through five of the worst, most embarrassing cases in Supreme Court history. First, though, the guys tackle a question from Scott, who's considering becoming a patron of the show (good!) but has some questions about a standard form indemnification clause in the Patreon agreement. In the main segment, we look at the worst of the worst in Supreme Court history. From the embarrassingly racist to the embarrassingly activist, come visit the Supreme Court's "Hall of Shame" with Andrew and Thomas. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an examination of a new mandatory arbitration provision for civil cases in Cook County, Illinois. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #20. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a guest on Episode 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The worst cases in Supreme Court history, in chronological order, are: Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (not discussed in this episode) Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) Korematsu v. US, 323 US 214 (1944) Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986); and, of course, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (not discussed in this episode) Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
21-4-2017 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 56 seconden
OA61: Flyin' the Friendly Skies & Newt Gingrich Still Has a Contract on America
In this episode of Opening Arguments, the guys look at both United Airlines and an obscure law from 1996 that could threaten the "administrative state" held in such disdain by our newest Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch. First, of course, Andrew breaks down the legality of the recent decision by United Airlines to forcibly remove a passenger. How badly is United going to get sued? You know we deliver the goods. Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss a little-known law passed in 1996 as part of the Republican Revolution and Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America": the Congressional Review Act. What is it, and why does it matter? Listen and find out! In the "C" segment, Andrew answers a question from his mom. Really! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #19 about diversity jurisdiction. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was recently a guest on the Embrace the Void podcast, Episodes 5 and 6. Listen and enjoy! Show Notes & Links The Congressional Review Act is 5 U.S.C. § 802. ...and the Brookings Institute study can be found here. Finally, you can read Todd Gaziano's efforts to beef up the CRA here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
18-4-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 52 seconden
OA60: Sex and Sexual Orientation
In this episode, we take a look at a landmark decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. First, though, we tackle a question from listener Justin Wilder who wants to know about serving a subpoena on Amazon for evidence in a civil case related to information that might be stored on your Echo. We love that our listeners are becoming civil procedure geeks! In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the landmark Hively decision and discusses what it means and what the likely future of the case will be. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an examination of South Dakota SB 149 which extends protections to adoption agencies in the state with (wait for it) sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #19 that asks about diversity jurisdiction in federal court between two companies. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew just recorded a two-part episode of the Embrace the Void Podcast; you can (and should!) give Episode 5 a listen right here. Show Notes & Links FRCP 45 governs subpoenas. This is the Supreme Court's Opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. And here is the link to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. This is the text of South Dakota SB 149, which allows adoption agencies to discriminate on the basis of a sincerely held religious or moral belief. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
14-4-2017 • 1 uur, 17 minuten, 24 seconden
OA59: Make America Great Again! OA Defends Trump
In this highly unlikely episode of Opening Arguments, the guys run through three segments in which they defend President Donald J. Trump. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction First, listener T.Sp. asks about the just-invoked "nuclear option," and whether that vote itself could have been filibustered, thus triggering an endless loop of filibusters... Obviously the answer is no -- but why? We learn about some arcane Senate procedures and the guys conclude that the Democrats probably would have done the same thing if the situation were reversed. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down the recent use of force by President Trump in Syria. Does it violate the Constitution? The War Powers Act of 1973? Some other law? (No.) Yet again, the guys defend President Trump. In the "C" segment, our beloved Yodelin' Trump returns and the guys break down a popular video by Robert Reich that lays out five grounds for impeaching Trump. How good are they? Hint: check out the title of this show. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #18 about a crazily unconstitutional law regarding clothing. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was recently a guest on both the Embrace the Void podcast and The Phil Ferguson Show; links will go up when those shows release. Show Notes & Links The War Powers Act of 1973 is 50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq. ...and the 60-day provision is found in section 1544. This is the document prepared by President Clinton's lawyers defending the 1994 invasion of Haiti. Here is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force post-9/11. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
10-4-2017 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 23 seconden
OA58: What Football Can Teach Us About Jury Nullification, Antitrust, and Donald Trump - Part 2
Today's episode is part two of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump. Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get some insight into Trump's legal strategies that just might have some relevance today.... First, though, "Breakin' Down the Law" defines "antitrust" in order to get you prepared to tackle the rest of our main story. Afterwards, we answer a question from listener Eric Johnston, who wants to know what exactly "laches" and "estoppel" are. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #18 that asks about the Constitutionality of an oppressive new law restricting clothing. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew just recorded a delightful and moderate discussion of the law of God's Not Dead 2 with the hosts of the "Is This Reel Life?" podcast. Show Notes & Links This is the AmLaw article Andrew mentions in which lawyers second-guessed Donald Trump's choice of litigation tactics way back in 2009. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
7-4-2017 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 50 seconden
OA57: What Football Can Teach Us About Jury Nullification, Antitrust, and Donald Trump - Part 1
Today's episode is part one of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump. Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get some insight into Trump's legal strategies that just might have some relevance today.... First, though, "Breakin' Down the Law" defines "jury nullification" in order to get you prepared to tackle our main story. Afterwards, we answer a question from listener Collin Boots, who wants to know why Andrew was so dismissive of term limits back in Episode 54. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #17 about selling a lemon of a used car in "as is" condition. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew just recorded a delightful and moderate discussion of the law of God's Not Dead 2 with the hosts of the "Is This Reel Life?" podcast. Show Notes & Links This is the AmLaw article Andrew mentions in which lawyers second-guessed Donald Trump's choice of litigation tactics way back in 2009. And here is a link to U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), in which the Court struck down state efforts to limit Congressional and Senate terms. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
4-4-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 11 seconden
OA56: Jury Secrecy and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
In today's episode, we look at a recent Supreme Court decision that could have wide-ranging effects on future trials. We begin, however, by "Breakin' Down the Law" regarding House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. Did he just violate the law Republicans kept trying to insist applied to Hillary Clinton's emails? (Yes.) In our main segment, we delve into a recent Supreme Court decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, in which the Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial means that jurors must be free to report blatant racial bias in otherwise-private jury deliberations, even if the law says otherwise. How the Court came down on this issue is also reflective of the split on the Supreme Court between the originalist justices and the mainstream ones. Next, long-time friend of the show Eric Brewer returns with a question about felon voting rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #17 that asks about the common law behind "as is" used cars. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew and Thomas were guests on Eiynah's podcast, Polite Conversations, Panel Discussion #6 talking about liberals vs. conservatives on free speech. Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here's the story on Devin Nunes's disclosures of confidential intelligence briefings to the press and to White House flacks. And this is the text of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)(1), which is indeed the same statute Republicans sought to use against Hillary Clinton. This counts as irony, right? And finally, this is the Supreme Court's decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
31-3-2017 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 15 seconden
OA55: More on Gorsuch - Was He Just Unanimously Reversed By the Supreme Court?
Today's episode continues our look at appellate jurisprudence, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, and the philosophy of originalism that Andrew continues to insist is so extreme ast o be disqualifying. First, our much-beloved segment "Are You A Cop?" returns in triumphant fashion with an examination of a claim being raised by many Trump supporters; namely, that the 9th Circuit is "the most reversed appellate court in the country" with a "90% reversal rate." Is this claim true? (No.) In the main segment, we take a look at the Supreme Court's just-released opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. Is this a "unanimous reversal" of Gorsuch on appeal while Gorsuch's nomination remains pending?? As usual, we correct the news sources that got this story wrong and explain its significance to you. Next, we answer a question/comment from Ed Brayton, author of the "Dispatches From The Culture Wars" blog, who has a different take on originalism. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #16 about apparent authority. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew and Thomas were guests on Eiynah's podcast, Polite Conversations, Panel Discussion #6 talking about liberals vs. conservatives on free speech. Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links This Politifact Article debunks the claim that the 9th Circuit is the "most reversed" appellate court. This is the text of the Endrew F v. Douglas County School Dist. opinion just issued by the Supreme Court. And here is the Endrew F opinion from the 10th Circuit (not authored by Gorsuch) that was reversed. Finally, this is the Luke P decision that was by Gorsuch discussed in the episode. And by contrast, this is Urban v. Jefferson County School Dist., 89 F.3d 720 (1996), which you can read for yourself and see that Gorsuch deliberately misconstrued. You can read Ed Brayton's excellent blog, Dispatches From The Culture Wars, by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
28-3-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 9 seconden
OA54: Gerrymandering
In today's episode, we look at the history and potential future of gerrymandered congressional districts. We begin, however, with a listener question that's come to us from multiple sources, including Patrons Greg Boettcher and Adrian Borschow, who want to know if there's any difference between a "jail" and a "prison." We deliver the goods! In our main segment, we delve into three recent cases regarding the time-honored practice of gerrymandering a state into congressional districts so as to maximize the number of safe seats for any one political party. How significant is this problem, and can the courts fix it? Listen and find out! Next, our much-beloved segment "Closed Arguments" returns with a look at a British tabloid journalist, Katie Hopkins, who was recently forced to pay more than 300,000 pounds (that's still real money, right?) after mistakenly taunting another journalist on Twitter. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #16 that asks whether an administrative assistant has sufficient authority to bind her boss when making contracts. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None. Have us on your podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us! Show Notes & Links The first Supreme Court case to recognize a constitutional right to a non-gerrymandered district was Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). Scalia (of course) attempted to overrule Davis v. Bandemer in his 2004 plurality opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 US 267 (2004), but could only garner four votes. Since then, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the basic principle of Davis v. Bandemer in LULAC v. Perry, 548 US 399 (2006), in which only two sitting Supreme Court justices have endorsed the Scalia position. This is a fairly awesome video from former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger making gerrymandering the centerpiece of what is likely to be a run for the Senate in 2018. This is the Whitford et al. v. Gill (Wisc.) decision on gerrymandering that contains a detailed section as to how to detect and remedy "packing" and "cracking." This is the full text link to the Perez v. Abbott (W.D. Texas) decision on Texas's gerrymandered congressional districts. Andrew recommends Princeton professor Sam Wang's work on gerrymandering. The full text of his Stanford Law Review article is here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
24-3-2017 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 18 seconden
OA53: Did Jeff Sessions Perjure Himself & Other Trump-Related Stories
In today's episode, we take a look at a recent claim being made by Sen. Al Franken and others that Attorney General Jeff Sessions perjured himself during his confirmation hearings. First, we begin with an examination of some legal issues in the news related to the Trump administration. What does it mean that the ABA rated Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch "well qualified," and does that mean Andrew is rethinking his opinions to the contrary in Episode 40 and Episode 49? (No.) We also delve into a discussion of the recent (non-)story regarding the release of Donald Trump's 2005 form 1040, as well as the recent decisions by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland to issue temporary restraining orders blocking Trump's Revised Executive Order ("Muslim Ban"). In the main segment, we break down exactly what Sessions said and whether it meets the technical requirements for perjury. Next, we answer a question from patron Anthoni Fortier, who asks us what "cert" is and why Andrew keeps saying it. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #15 about eyewitness identification. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None. Have us on your podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us! Show Notes & Links This is the full text of the Hawaii decision enjoining the Revised Executive Order. If you missed it, you'll want to check out OA Episode #43, in which we first discussed the 9th Circuit's Opinion that we revisit in this episode. This is the full text of President Trump's revised Executive Order ("Muslim Ban"). And this is the decision in Church of Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which Andrew continues to think is the touchstone for whether Trump's Revised EO violates the First Amendment. Here is the full text of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the federal perjury statute. This is a timeline maintained by the Washington Post of Sessions's relevant conduct. This is the tweet from John Harwood confirming that Russian officials did discuss the election with Jeff Sessions. And here is an article in the National Review arguing to the contrary (largely on the grounds of 'intent'). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
21-3-2017 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 3 seconden
OA52: Thomas Knows Words! Thomas Has The Best Words!
In today's episode, we look at some legal terms that our patrons asked us to define. In a twist, however, the guys switch chairs and Andrew asks the questions while Thomas tries to offer legal definitions. How did that work out? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a listener question from Rachel Doty, who -- in keeping with this episode's theme -- asks us to define "Alford plea." Then, based on a suggestion from patron Marie Kent, we ask Thomas to define as many legal terms as he can in half an hour. We think this would make an awesome game show, so if any of our listeners are TV producers, please give us a call. Next, we take a look at a listener who recommended a Facebook post from an immigration attorney, and the guys discuss the concept of "illegal" immigration. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #15 that asks whether eyewitness testimony can be tainted by viewing the suspect in police custody. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None. Have us on your podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us! Show Notes & Links Check out Marie's podcast, My Book of Mormon, by clicking here. This is the Facebook post from immigration lawyer Lily Axelrod that we discuss during the show. The one section of the US Code that Andrew found that uses the term "illegal alien" is 8 USC § 1365(b), which is very different from the colloquial use of the term. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
17-3-2017 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 38 seconden
OA51: The Grimm Reality About Transgender Bathrooms
In today's episode, we take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision to rescind its grant of certiorari in the 4th Circuit opinion of Grimm v. Gloucester County School District. What happened, and what does this mean for transgender rights? First, we begin with an examination of the Trump administration's revised Executive Order (sometimes called the "Muslim Ban") restricting entry from now six Muslim-majority nations. As you may recall, we first addressed this issue back in Opening Arguments episode #43. Does this revised order comply with the law and solve the problems outlined by the 9th Circuit, or is it still "obviously unconstitutional," as many news sources claim? You'll know better than the New York Times soon enough! In our main segment, we look at Title IX's prohibition on "sex" discrimination and discuss whether it applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity while walking through the somewhat unique procedural history of the Grimm decision. Next, we evaluate whether former President Obama would be likely to prevail in a lawsuit for defamation against President Trump for the claim that Obama "wiretapped Trump Towers" prior to the election. Is this Bat Boy?? Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #14 about IIED. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a guest on The Gaytheist Manifesto podcast, discussing the history of Title IX. Show Notes & Links If you missed it, you'll want to check out OA Episode #43, in which we first discussed the 9th Circuit's Opinion that we revisit in this episode. This is the full text of President Trump's revised Executive Order ("Muslim Ban"). According to this Guardian article, Hawaii has already sued to block the Revised EO. This is the decision in Church of Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which is the touchstone for whether Trump's Revised EO violates the First Amendment. Click here to read the (overconfident) New York Times article, "Don't Be Fooled" that asserts that the Revised EO is blatantly unconstitutional. This is the text of 20 U.S.C. § 1681 ("Title IX"). This is the memorandum issued by the Obama DOJ providing guidance as to how to interpret Title IX. And click here for the 4th Circuit's now-vacated opinion in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board that we discuss during the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
14-3-2017 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 16 seconden
OA50: Obama's Fiduciary Rule (With Guest Ben Offit)
In today's episode, we take a look at a rule first proposed by President Obama's Department of Labor in 2016 that would require financial advisers to abide by a "fiduciary" duty with their clients. What does that mean? Listen and find out! We begin with a relevant note about the status of the rule, which is due to be implemented in 60 days. Next, in our main segment, we take a look at the implications of the Fiduciary Rule by consulting an expert; in this case, certified financial planner Ben Offit, CFP® who has a somewhat novel take on this enhanced obligation. He breaks down what the proposed rule means for you and the financial professionals you might hire. After the main segment, we turn to a petition that has been garnering significant attention on the Internet: #ReVote2017. What is it? Is it really pending before the Supreme Court, and what does that mean? Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #14 regarding the tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links To find out more about Ben Offit, CFP® and his services, you can visit his firm, Clear Path Advisory, or email Ben at [email protected]. This is the announcement that the Fiduciary Rule has been postponed for 60 days. You can also check out the text of the Fiduciary Rule itself. This is the hilarious petition for writ of mandamus filed by the #ReVote 2017 petitioners. And this is the docket entry for their petition, which is currently pending before the Court and will be denied on March 17, 2017, one week from today. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
10-3-2017 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 39 seconden
OA49: Why Originalists Don't Belong on the Supreme Court
In today's episode, we take a long look at the judicial philosophy of "originalism" made popular by former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and advocated by his would-be replacement. First, we begin with a question from Jodi, who asks Andrew for his opinion of LegalZoom and other law-in-a-box services. Andrew gets a little emotional in his response.... Next, we break down originalism as a form of jurisprudence and examine why it is (1) internally incoherent and contradictory; (2) dangerous and unconstrained; and (3) contrary to the fundamental purpose of the judiciary. Andrew's argument is that originalists do not belong on the Supreme Court. Period. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #13 about hearsay. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a panel guest on The Thinking Atheist episode "Donald Trump's America," which you can listen to by clicking right here. Show Notes & Links Here are Andrew's two blog posts -- one about Legal Zoom and one about downloading contracts off the internet. His law firm site is here. This Huffington Post piece quotes Scalia's 2008 interview with Nina Totenberg about the Eighth Amendment not prohibiting 18th-century forms of torture. Here's a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Scalia's dissent in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 347-48 (2002) and opinion in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) are where he makes fun of citations to international law. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both "cruel" and "unusual in the Constitutional sense." Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
7-3-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 17 seconden
OA48: Three Cases You Care About - Planned Parenthood, Gay Florists, and Litigious Quacks
Today's episode is a little bit different than our usual format; today, we take a look at three cases that our listeners have asked about on Twitter and Facebook. First up is an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas enjoining the state of Texas (and nitwit Attorney General Ken Paxton) from disqualifying Planned Parenthood as an authorized Medicaid service provider on the basis of fake videos. Next, we tackle a recent ruling by the Washington Supreme Court applying that state's anti-discrimination law to a florist that decided she couldn't sell wedding flowers if the participants were gay. Is this really the worst violation of individual freedom in the history of Western Civilization? Third, we look at the recent victory in the 11th Circuit by our colleague Dr. Steven Novella of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Podcast, and discuss what the ruling means for (say) podcasters who get sued for libel. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #13 regarding hearsay. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Thomas was interviewed by Conatus News about the development of the atheist community on the internet, including the role played by his other podcast, Serious Inquiries Only. Andrew was a guest panelist on an episode of The Thinking Atheist show, "Donald Trump's America." Show Notes & Links This is the W.D. Texas order restraining the state from blocking Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Here is a link to Washington's anti-discrimination law. Click here to read David French's hilariously over-the-top description of this case in the right-wing garbage mag, the National Review. This is the 11th Circuit's ruling in Tobinick v. Novella. Click here to check out Dr. Novella's podcast, the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
3-3-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 28 seconden
OA47: Is This The Gun Control Case That Could Overrule DC v. Heller?
In today's episode, we take a look at the just-decided case of Kolbe v. Hogan out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Is this case as big a deal as people are saying it is? We begin, however, with a preliminary question from patron Alice Ashton, who asks about the controversial flavor-of-the-week, recently deplatformed Milo Yiannopolous. Does knowing about a crime and not reporting it make you an accessory after the fact? Find out! Next, we break down Kolbe v. Hogan and explain whether this recent decision lives up to the hype (and why)! After our main segment, we answer another patron question, this one from Derek Timp, who has some questions about the separation of church and state. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #12 about that criminal squirrel-feeder. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a panel guest on The Thinking Atheist episode "Donald Trump's America," which you can listen to by clicking right here. Also, Seth Andrews, host of the Thinking Atheist, has just released his "Secular State of the Union" address which you can listen to right here. Show Notes & Links Thomas did a fabulous, full-length episode of Serious Inquiries Only about Milo; you should give that a listen. Alice's question referenced a post and attached video on the Joe.My.God. website which you can see here. This is the text of the Kolbe v. Hogan decision. And here is DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Here's a brief rundown of clergy serving in Congress. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
28-2-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 43 seconden
OA46: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? (With Guest Tony Di Fatta) - Part 2
Today's episode concludes our two-part look at one of your most requested questions: what might be in Donald Trump's taxes! We begin, however, with a listener criticism from Peter Crinklaw, who thinks Andrew gave short shrift to the policy argument for educational vouchers. Next, we conclude our two-part interview Tony Di Fatta, a practicing CPA, to take a deep-dive into all the things we might -- and might not -- find in the event that Donald Trump's taxes are ever disclosed. All of this is meant to shed some light on the question: should Democrats be focused on finding out what's in Trump's taxes? After our main segment, we tackle another listener question; this one from our top patron Zabby, who wants to know about the recently-passed Jacksonville, Florida Human Rights Ordinance. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #12 regarding witness credibility. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Thomas was interviewed by Conatus News about the development of the atheist community on the internet, including the role played by his other podcast, Serious Inquiries Only. Andrew was a guest on the David Pakman show; you can watch the 14-minute video interview here. Andrew was also a guest on the Biskeptical Podcast, episode #19, with Trav Mamone and Morgan Stringer, discussing free speech and Milo Yiannopolous. Hall of Fame Patron Charone Frankel started her own legal comedy podcast, Habeas Humor. Go check it out. Show Notes & Links This is the economist survey regarding vouchers mentioned by Peter. To find out more about Tony, click here for his website, or give him a call at (443) 791-5726. This is a link to Donald Trump's 2016 financial disclosures. Here's the hilarious Onion article, "You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm!" This is the text of the Jacksonville HRO. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
24-2-2017 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 45 seconden
OA45: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? (With Guest Tony Di Fatta) - Part 1
In today's episode, we take a look at one of your most requested questions: what might be in Donald Trump's taxes! We begin, however, with a preliminary question from Jim Sabatowski, who asks us what's the big deal with Trump's tax returns, anyway? Is there a good reason to think we can get information that's necessary to evaluate a candidate? Next, we give you part one of our two-part interview Tony Di Fatta, a practicing CPA, to take a deep-dive into all the things we might -- and might not -- find in the event that Donald Trump's taxes are ever disclosed. All of this is meant to shed some light on the question: should Democrats be focused on finding out what's in Trump's taxes? After our main segment, we inaugurate a new segment about how close President Trump is to impeachment with a question about 18 USC § 1001 and the prohibition against making false statements. With a bonus reference to The Price Is Right! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #11 about the best evidence rule. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Thomas was interviewed by Conatus News about the development of the atheist community on the internet, including the role played by his other podcast, Serious Inquiries Only. Andrew was a guest on the David Pakman show; you can watch the 14-minute video interview here. Andrew was also a guest on the Biskeptical Podcast, episode #19, with Trav Mamone and Morgan Stringer, discussing free speech and Milo Yiannopolous. Show Notes & Links To find out more about Tony, click here for his website, or give him a call at (443) 791-5726. This is a link to Donald Trump's 2016 financial disclosures. Here's the hilarious Onion article, "You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm!" This is the text of 18 USC § 1001. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
21-2-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 34 seconden
OA44: All About Arbitration
In today's episode, we take a look at arbitration, an increasingly popular device being used to take disputes out of the courtroom. What might arbitration mean for you? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a question from patron Faye Reppas, who asks about HR 2802, the so-called "First Amendment Defense Act." Next, in our main segment, we take a look at the implications of arbitration -- particularly in the employment context, where your employer may have inserted a mandatory arbitration clause in your employment agreement. What does arbitration do? Can you be compelled to do it? We break it all down for you. After our main segment, we tackle another listener question; this one from Eric Walls about corporate personhood. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #11 regarding the testimony of a plaintiff who's had surgical sponges accidentally left inside of her (a surprisingly common occurrence). Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links This is the text of the proposed HR 2802, the First Amendment Defense Act. Andrew wrote two articles on arbitration for his firm blog: you can read Part 1 and Part 2 for more in-depth analysis. Here's a link to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Here is a link to Andrew's appearance on the David Pakman show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
17-2-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 25 seconden
OA43: Explaining the 9th Circuit's Ruling on Trump's Muslim Ban
In today's episode, we take a look at the ongoing status of Executive Order 13769 (often referred to as the "Muslim Ban"). What exactly did the 9th Circuit decide, and how does it affect the status of efforts to restrict emigration going forward? We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where we examine the so-called "Johnson Amendment." What is it? Would it be a bad thing if the Trump administration repeals it? Does it really make a difference? We break down the law so you'll be armed with the information you need to answer these questions. Next, we take a deep-dive into the 9th Circuit's recent ruling denying the Government's emergency motion for a stay. What does that mean? Where is this lawsuit headed next? You won't know if you only read The New York Times, but you will know if you listen to this show! After our main segment, we turn to a question from listener Schofield Miller about why courts hand down multiple-life sentences that run to hundreds of years. Figure out what it means to be sentenced to "ten consecutive life sentences." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #10 about witness testimony. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Also: Andrew was recently on Episode #103 of the Gaytheist Manifesto podcast talking about executive orders more generally; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Andrew also discussed the Johnson Amendment when he was a guest on The Scathing Atheist podcast episode #208. Andrew also did a guest spot on episode #103 of the Gaytheist Manifesto talking about executive orders. Judge Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington's Order issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Executive Order is here. And the 9th Circuit's opinion refusing to issue a stay is here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
14-2-2017 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 43 seconden
OA42: Denny Hastert and the Limits of Contract Law
Today's episode is brought to you by Audible! Go to audible.com/lawpod for your free 30 day trial!! In today's episode, we take a look at the law of contracts, and particularly in the context of the recent lawsuit involving former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert. We begin, however, with a related question from patron Michael, who asks whether the Scientologists can really enforce that billion-year contract to join to Sea Org. (This answer will not surprise you.) That leads into our main segment, where we look at the strange and tragic lawsuit being brought against Hastert by a victim of his past sexual assault. Hastert agreed to pay the victim $3.5 million for his silence, and then stopped paying after he came under federal investigation. Recently, Hastert counter-sued to recover the hush money previously paid, and we break down all the intricacies of contract law to try and figure out who's likely to get what. After our main segment, we tackle another listener question; this time, about whether employers can fire you for smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home if you live in a state like Colorado that's legalized marijuana use. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #10 which is another very, very hard question. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links This Chicago Tribune article sets forth the facts of the Hastert case. And this Tribune article contains the actual text of Haster's counterclaim that we discuss during the show. On Thursday, Andrew was a guest on The Scathing Atheist podcast episode #208. That same day (he's a busy guy!), Andrew also did a guest spot on episode #103 of the Gaytheist Manifesto podcast. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected].
10-2-2017 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 7 seconden
OA41: Betsy DeVos and School Vouchers
In today's episode, we examine one of the favorite policy recommendations of President Trump's Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos: the school voucher. What is it? Is it constitutional? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where Andrew looks at a popular Twitter account's explanation of the odd fact that Donald Trump filed his re-election papers four years early. Is there some nefarious purpose to him having done so, or is this innocuous? We break down the law so you'll be armed with the information you need to navigate these kinds of claims. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), the most recent Supreme Court case to consider school vouchers, with a focus on whether providing federal tax dollars to private religious institutions violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After our main segment, we turn to a question from ex-Mormon about the infamous "Mormon Extermination Order," an executive order (No. 44) signed by Missouri Gov. Lilburn Boggs in 1838. This dovetails with a two-hour discussion of the Order between Andrew and host Bryce Blankenagel during episode 47 of the "Naked Mormonism" podcast, which you should definitely check out by clicking here. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #9 about joint tenancy. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links The "Resisterhood" tweets are here. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). This is the original, hand-written text of Missouri Executive Order 44 (the "Mormon Extermination Order"). The main page for the "Naked Mormonism" podcast is here; and Andrew was on Epsiode 47, which you can download here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
7-2-2017 • 57 minuten, 30 seconden
OA40: Who is Neil Gorsuch, and How Scared Should You Be?
In today's episode, we take a look at President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. The main segment was recorded before the announcement and reflects our guess (correctly!) that he would be the nominee, so you'll hear some speculative language. We begin, however, with a question from David Durman who wants to know if a citizen can bring a private civil suit against President Trump while he's in office. The answer may surprise you! During our main segment, we also discuss Gorsuch's originalism and some of the opinions and dissents he issued while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Oh, and he also wrote a snottly little editorial for the right-wing mag National Review. After our main segment, "Closed Arguments" returns with a question about Jared Kushner and the anti-nepotism law. Is Trump violating the law? The answer will probably not surprise you. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #9 which is the single hardest question so far, in that it involves real property. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links This is a link to the Washington Post article referenced by David. If you read only one thing from the show notes, it should be this sarcastic, nasty little article Gorsuch wrote for the National Review before he joined the bench. Then, if you have the stomach for it, check out Gorsuch's opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016), in which he openly muses in the text of the opinion about repealing Chevron deference. Still think he's not an activist judge? This is the anti-nepotism law, 5 U.S.C. §3110. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected].
3-2-2017 • 52 minuten, 30 seconden
OA39: Trump's Muslim Ban
Today's episode revisits a question we tackled way back in Episode #16, namely, whether President Trump has the authority to enact his Muslim Ban. We begin with an examination of the recent CREW lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that President Trump has violated the Emoluments Clause. Is that lawsuit likely to prevail? What could it accomplish? Listen and find out. In the main segment, we consider not only the recent Trump Executive Order restricting the entry of aliens from seven majority-Muslim nations (the "Muslim Ban"). We address questions of legality and constitutionality, as well as break down the recent injunction handed down by the Southern District of New York in response to the ACLU's lawsuit. After our main segment, we turn to a question from a conservative listener about abortion and whether Roe v. Wade was an "activist" decision. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #8 about a landowner's duties regarding trespassers who accidentally fall into the landowner's murder lake. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links The CREW lawsuit is here. We reference two decisions on the "political question" doctrine: Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) and Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993). We initially discussed the Muslim Ban way back in OA Episode #16, which is worth another listen! The authorizing statute (the "1952 Law") is 8 USC §1182(f). The "1965 Law" is 8 USC §1152(a). In light of those two provisions, we think you can spot the errors in David Bier's op-ed in the New York Times. I wrote a lot on Facebook about the ACLU lawsuit and the injunction handed down by the court on Saturday, so you can check that out if you want the relevant documents. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
31-1-2017 • 1 uur, 20 minuten, 34 seconden
OA38: FLSA and Exempt Employees, Part 2
Today's episode is part two of our two-part series on pending changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). As we've previously mentioned, in 2016, the Obama Department of Labor promulgated new rules requiring that employees who are "exempt" from the FLSA's overtime requirements must earn at least $47,476 per year. A district court judge issued an injunction blocking those rules from going into effect; that decision is currently pending on expedited review before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this episode, Andrew continues his explanation as to why he thinks those rules are going to eventually go into effect and what that means for employers and employees. We begin, however, with a thoughtful question from friend of the show Noah Lugeons regarding how the FLSA's tipping rules interact with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is it illegal for employers to rely on tips knowing how inequally tips are handed out to men and minorities? Listen and find out! After our main segment on the FLSA, we answer a delightfully mad question from Robert Rautio regarding the supposed "right to travel" in the Constitution. Answering this doozy takes us back into the weird and wonderful world of "sovereign citizens" -- you won't want to miss it! Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #8 about whether a company dumping toxic waste has a duty to warn trespassers. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links The relevant provisions of the FLSA for this episode are 29 USC § 207 (maximum hours) and 29 USC § 213 (exempt employees). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 begins at 42 USC § 2000e and can be found here. This is the original rule promulgated by Obama's Department of Labor. Here is the judicial injunction blocking the implementation of the rule. And here is the judge's decision not to overturn his own injunction after a motion for reconsideration. Please laugh at -- but DO NOT FILE! -- this suggested "brief" by the weirdos at The Lawful Path who think you can get out of a traffic ticket by filing this nonsense. (You can't.) And here's another absolutely bonkers list of random string-cites that purports to show that you have an absolute right to travel guaranteed by the Constitution. (You don't.) Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
27-1-2017 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 42 seconden
OA37: FLSA and Exempt Employees, Part 1
Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on pending changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). As we've previously mentioned, in 2016, the Obama Department of Labor promulgated new rules requiring that employees who are "exempt" from the FLSA's overtime requirements must earn at least $47,476 per year. A district court judge issued an injunction blocking those rules from going into effect; that decision is currently pending on expedited review before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this episode, Andrew explains why he thinks those rules are going to eventually go into effect and what that means for employers and employees. We begin, however, with a listener correction regarding the FLSA and tipped employees. As it turns out, Andrew mis-spoke on a prior episode and employers must ensure that an employee's total compensation (including tips) meets the federal minimum wage. After our main segment on the FLSA, the much-beloved "Are You A Cop?" segment returns with a myth about President Trump revoking the commutation of Chelsea Manning's prison sentence. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #7 about hearsay. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links The relevant provisions of the FLSA for this episode are 29 USC § 207 (maximum hours) and 29 USC § 213 (exempt employees). The DOL Fact Sheet #15 referred to listener Victoria McNair is here. This is the original rule promulgated by Obama's Department of Labor. Here is the judicial injunction blocking the implementation of the rule. And here is the judge's decision not to overturn his own injunction after a motion for reconsideration. Finally, here's the New York Times story about President Obama commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
24-1-2017 • 59 minuten, 23 seconden
OA36: The Emoluments Clause (w/Seth Barrett Tillman) Part 2
Today's episode is part two of our two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, with a listener question from Erik Alsman who asks whether the Supreme Court has the power to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional. Along the way we'll learn a little bit about the history of judicial review in the United States. In our main segment, we conclude our interview with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law, exploring Tillman's thesis that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis. Afterwards, Thomas and Andrew break down the argument and offer their views on the issue. Next, we air some listener comments and questions regarding the difference between a "barrister" and a "solicitor" in UK law. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #7 about the admissibility of a hearsay statement during a civil trial. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links This is the text of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which the Supreme Court articulated -- some say, invented! -- the doctrine of judicial review. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
20-1-2017 • 1 uur, 16 minuten, 6 seconden
OA35: The Emoluments Clause (w/Seth Barrett Tillman) Part 1
Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, by addressing another Trump-related question: Does a recent report claiming that 50+ Trump electors are ineligible provide the relief of preventing Trump from assuming the Presidency? We delve into the report and answer the question in a way that may surprise you. Our main interview segment is with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law. Tillman's thesis is that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis. Next, we answer a listener question from William Stemmler about officeholders in the line of Presidential Succession who are themselves ineligible to become President. Could Donald Trump nominate George W. Bush to be Secretary of State? Find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about pre-nuptial agreements. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links Here's the Raw Story report on disqualified Trump electors, and the full text of the report can be downloaded from Alternet. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download
17-1-2017 • 1 uur, 3 minuten, 55 seconden
OA34: The "Fallout" Over Copyright
Today's episode is a mini-masterclass on Copyright. We begin by answering a question from listener Sue Barnum who asks if a simple list can be copyrighted. After that, we move to the main discussion over the Copyright Act and the "fair use" defense, using as an illustration the recent story where CNN appropriated the graphic from the hit videogame Fallout 4 to illustrate a story about Russian hacking. Did this violate copyright law? Or was CNN's activity "fair use" of the game screen? Next, we answer a fun listener question from Damian Kumor about the portrayal of law in media. What's Andrew's favorite obscure legal TV show? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about prenuptial agreements. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links Here's the text of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). This article from cnet explained CNN's use of the Fallout 4 graphic. The Copyright Act of 1976 is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Learn about the incredibly low-rated cancelled TV show "Justice" at its IMDB page. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
13-1-2017 • 1 uur, 6 minuten
OA33: Interview With The Slants
Today's episode begins with Breakin' Down the Law in which we discuss the recently-enacted "Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act," and whether the Act constitutes a significant legal protection for atheists. During our main segment, we are excited to have on Simon Tam, founder of the band "The Slants," for an extended interview that follows up on our discussion of Lee v. Tam from Episode 30. Simon tells us about the history of the band, answers some tough legal questions, and also describes how he combines his music with social justice activism. After the interview, we turn to a listener comment from friend of the show Dr. Dave Hawkes, who helps answer a plausibility question we had from Law'd Awful Movies. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #5 about the garnishment of wages. For every episode going forward, TTTBE will give you a new question on Friday, followed by the answer on Tuesday. And remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links Learn all about The Slants and download authorized samples of their songs at www.theslants.com. This is the press release issued by the American Humanist Association that also contains the full text of the Frank R. Wolf Act. If you missed our initial coverage of The Slants on OA30, you should go back and listen to that episode! And if you still haven't listened to our free episode of Law'd Awful Movies #1, you can download that here. Finally, this is a copy of the Slants’ Supreme Court brief, which is reasonably entertaining for a legal brief. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
10-1-2017 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 34 seconden
OA32: Phil Ivey's Gambling Winnings (with guest Chris Kristofco)
Today's episode begins with a question from Adrien Thuren about the minimum wage. How come restaurants can seemingly pay wait staff less than minimum wage? And if that's legal, why don't other industries don't start paying their employees less than minimum wage too? Andrew tells us why or why not. For our main segment, we bring back guest Chris Kristofco from OA6. In addition to being an ex-lawyer and current-day blogger about the Green Bay Packers, Chris is also a casino employee and former dealer. He joins us to help break down the recent verdict in federal court in New Jersey requiring Phil Ivey to pay back $10.1 million to the Atlantic City Borgata casino. Next, "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with a segment that explains the difference between a "lawyer" and an "attorney." Be honest -- you didn't know the answer, either, did you?? Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where Thomas tackles question #5 about garnishment of wages. For every episode going forward, TTTBE will give you a new question on Friday, followed by the answer on Tuesday. And remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links If you like football, and you love (or hate!) the Packers, you should listen to Chris Kristofco's excellent podcast, Titletown Sound Off. If you missed Chris's first appearance way back on OA6, you should go back and listen to his predictions about the "pending NFL apocalypse," and you'll understand why we hold his feet to the fire on this return visit. This is the Washington Post article explaining the Ivey verdict, based on the recent damage ruling. And this is the full text of the October decision by the federal court on liability, which mostly went unnoticed even though it decided the key issue in the Borgata's favor. Finally, this link contains a graphic representation of the purple Gemaco cards that were the subject of the suit as well as the "flaw" exploited by Ivey. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
6-1-2017 • 1 uur, 2 minuten
OA31: More on the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Lawsuit
Welcome to the first Opening Arguments of 2017, and the first episode on our new two-episode-per-week schedule. Just a reminder: we will be releasing these episodes on Tuesdays and Fridays every week. More on scheduling below. Today's episode begins with a far-fetched (but interesting!) hypothetical about what would happen if Donald Trump refused to take the Presidential Oath of Office. We dig into the Constitution, the 20th Amendment, and the 25th Amendment and go down some fun rabbit trails. For our main segment, we return to the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit we discussed in OA 29, and tackle some common questions about negligence raised by listeners. Next, "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with a segment that explains the difference between "legalizing" and "decriminalizing" ... stuff. Yeah, "stuff." Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where we find out how our intrepid co-host did in answering real-life bar exam prep question #4 about trespass. Going forward, TTTBE will always be an answer on Tuesday followed by a new question on Friday. Remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s). Show Notes & Links If you missed OA29, you might want to go back and listen to find out all that's right and wrong about the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit. Also, we gave you a little holiday present by releasing LAM #1: The Firm to all of our listeners. If you haven't listened already, we think you'll enjoy it. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
3-1-2017 • 1 uur, 4 seconden
OA30: Little Baby Jesus in a Manger
Well, it's finally here: the last Opening Arguments of 2016. We're looking forward to 2017 (and our amazing two-episode-per-week schedule). We begin with some announcements about Law'd Awful Movies, and then turn to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where we find out how our intrepid co-host did in answering real-life bar exam prep questions. Then, we answer a listener question from Jim Sabatowski about the foreseeability of one's negligence by taking a trip back to law school and talking about the crazy, fireworks-on-a-train-exploding-scale madness that is Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928). In our main segment, we tackle the confusion world of religious-themed holiday displays. When is it okay to put a little baby Jesus on the courthouse steps? We'll tell you insofar as the Supreme Court has told us, which... isn't always perfectly clear. In our "C" segment, we tackle yet another listener question; this one from Skeptic Sarah regarding the controversy over trademark registration for the all Asian-American band "The Slants" and their unique crowdfunding of their Supreme Court legal costs. Finally, we conclude with TTTBE #4. Remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s). We'll see you in 2017... twice as often! Show Notes & Links Here's a link to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which will help you answer TTTBE #3. While we're at it, this is the full-text link to Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), the case every law student knows. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), set forth the "Lemon test" that we talk about in the main segment. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), was the 1984 case that said it was perfectly legitimate for a courthouse to display little baby Jesus in a manger. But weirdly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), was the case from just five years later where the Supreme Court said no, courts couldn't just display little baby Jesus in a manger, but they could display a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a liberty plaque all together. We defy you to explain the difference between Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), which upheld a Ten Commandments monument in Texas, and a decision handed down the exact same day, McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), which struck down Ten Commandments posted on the walls out two courthouses in Kentucky. Finally, this is a copy of the Slants' Supreme Court brief, which is reasonably entertaining for a legal brief. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
28-12-2016 • 1 uur, 2 minuten, 47 seconden
Law'd Awful Movies #1: The Firm
SPECIAL CHRISTMAS GIFT! This is normally for Patrons only, but we wanted to gift our non-patronizing listeners a gift and a sample of what they might be missing over at patreon.com/law!! Behold the majesty of what you are about to receive. This is, hands down, the worst legal movie ever made. From the opening credits to the cheesy ending voice-over, literally everything this movie has to say about the law is completely and utterly wrong. Yes, for our first Patreon movie reward, we suffered through all 2 hours and 34 minutes of The Firm (1993), which chronicles the amazing journey of Mitch McDeere (Tom Cruise), an I'm-no-idealist Harvard Law grad who refuses to break some imaginary law he thinks exists regarding attorney-client privilege, but has no problems with extortion, illegal wiretapping, fraud, and kicking a 92-year-old man to death. Come for the crazy legal subplot that can be solved in two seconds! Stay for the crazy second legal subplot that gets introduced for the first time right after most movies are rolling the credits! Stay even longer to watch the epic Tom Cruise-Wilford Brimley fight to the death! Special guest: Sam from Comedy Shoeshine. --------- Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
25-12-2016 • 2 uur, 35 minuten, 26 seconden
OA29: Cognitive Dissonance
It's a two-episode week! In this week's Wednesday episode, we are joined by Tom & Cecil of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast for a discussion about freedom of speech and whether online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter ought to be considered "public spaces." We begin with some announcements about the schedule, including Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, which will remain a weekly feature once we move to our twice-per-week format in January. So no new question today, but you will have a few extra days to answer TTTBE #3. Then we take a look at the new Texas law requiring funereal services for aborted embryos and miscarriages, and Thomas takes a shot at analyzing the issue. Is all his hard work studying for the Bar Exam paying off? Listen and find out! Finally, the show concludes with a discussion of the 1994 McDonalds "Hot Coffee" lawsuit, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, as an example of legal myths gone awry. What exactly happened in that case, and what does it say about whether we should have caps on punitive damages or other forms of "tort reform" in the U.S.? After that, we look at the abortion-related question of the lawsuit ostensibly brought by Sofia Vergara's frozen embryos. Is this a meritorious lawsuit or a publicity stunt orchestrated by a goofball anti-abortion columnist? Show Notes & Links Check out the Cognitive Dissonance podcast! Here are the actual fetal tissue rules promulgated by the Texas Health Services that require "interment" of "the products of spontaneous or induced human abortion." A federal judge in the Western District of Texas recently issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of the rules pending a preliminary injunction hearing to be held on January 3. Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016), provides some guidance as to how the Supreme Court might treat the Texas abortion rules. Here's the CollegeHumor video on the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
21-12-2016 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 53 seconden
OA28: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 2
In this week’s episode, we conclude our discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and how the “undue burden” test the Supreme Court developed in that case continues to govern laws protecting (and restricting) abortion today. However, we begin with the moment you’ve all been waiting for: the answer to Thomas Takes … Continue reading OA28: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 2 → The post OA28: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
19-12-2016 • 1 uur, 8 minuten, 2 seconden
OA27: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 1
In this week’s episode, we return to the subject of abortion and pick up with a cliffhanger from way back in episode #11, where Thomas was asked how he would have handled what became the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). We talk about that landmark decision, how it changed the … Continue reading OA27: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 1 → The post OA27: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
14-12-2016 • 1 uur, 9 minuten, 26 seconden
OA26: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 2
This week’s super-sized episode is literally jam-packed with five all-new segments for our listeners; six if you haven’t heard both parts of the Second Amendment Masterclass already. And make sure you stay tuned all the way to the end for our exciting new segment! First, you get an all-new introduction with new quotes, many of which were … Continue reading OA26: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 2 → The post OA26: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
7-12-2016 • 1 uur, 43 minuten, 55 seconden
OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.)
In this week’s episode, we discuss the recent efforts by Jill Stein and the Green Party to raise funds for Presidential recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Should you rush out and open your wallets to help raise funds for the Green Party? “Breakin’ Down the Law” returns with a discussion on court structure. If … Continue reading OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.) → The post OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.) appeared first on Opening Arguments.
30-11-2016 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 5 seconden
OA24: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 2
In part two of this two-part episode, we continue to address every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency. So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or … Continue reading OA24: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 2 → The post OA24: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
23-11-2016 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 35 seconden
OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1
In part one of this two-part episode, we tackle every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency. So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or what Trump’s … Continue reading OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1 → The post OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
16-11-2016 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 29 seconden
OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad
PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this week’s episode, we tackle the legal and philosophical issues underlying libertarianism. We take on such issues as : what is “property,” why is it a right, and is it cognizable as a side-constraint against government action? At the end of the day, … Continue reading OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad → The post OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad appeared first on Opening Arguments.
9-11-2016 • 1 uur, 6 minuten, 14 seconden
OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1
PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs By listener request, we are bringing you this special “deep dive” episode into the history and jurisprudence underlying the Second Amendment. This episode was originally broadcast on Atheistically Speaking earlier in 2016. Just in time for the election, we tackle a thorny political issue: … Continue reading OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1 → The post OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
3-11-2016 • 1 uur, 4 minuten, 47 seconden
OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION
PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this special episode, we look at breaking news: the jury verdict in United States v. Ammon Bundy et al., a federal case brought in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon as a result of the armed takeover of the Malheur National … Continue reading OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION → The post OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION appeared first on Opening Arguments.
1-11-2016 • 1 uur, 10 minuten
OA19: Should Edward Snowden Be Pardoned?
PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this week’s episode, we look at some of the interesting details surrounding the intentional release of classified materials by Edward Snowden. In particular, we looked at the legacy of Snowden’s leaks, how they played out in the Second Circuit’s decision in ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d … Continue reading OA19: Should Edward Snowden Be Pardoned? → The post OA19: Should Edward Snowden Be Pardoned? appeared first on Opening Arguments.
26-10-2016 • 1 uur, 1 minuut, 37 seconden
OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3
In this week’s super-sized episode, we conclude our three-part role-playing experiment “You Be The Supreme Court,” using an actual case that is currently pending before the Court: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. Last time, we went through the State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources’s response brief. This week, we look at the … Continue reading OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3 → The post OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
19-10-2016 • 1 uur, 14 minuten, 55 seconden
OA17: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 2
In this week’s episode, we return to our little role-playing experiment “You Be The Supreme Court,” using an actual case that is currently pending before the Court: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. Last time, we went through the Petitioner’s brief seeking to overturn the lower court’s decision to deny Trinity Lutheran Church the … Continue reading OA17: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 2 → The post OA17: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
12-10-2016 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 8 seconden
OA16: Dump Trump?
In this week’s bonus episode, we tackle the breaking legal question of whether the RNC can legally replace Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President, and if so, what the consequences would be. You don’t want to miss this episode! In our opening segment, we bring back a classic “Breakin’ (Down) the Law” by … Continue reading OA16: Dump Trump? → The post OA16: Dump Trump? appeared first on Opening Arguments.
11-10-2016 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 42 seconden
OA15: #SaveTheInternet
In this week’s episode, we tackle a breaking legal issue: is Andrew’s old law school buddy Ted Cruz correct that the U.S. government just “gave away the Internet?” (Hint: Ted Cruz is never right about anything.) We walk you through everything you could possibly want to know about #savetheinternet. (If you’re looking for Part 2 … Continue reading OA15: #SaveTheInternet → The post OA15: #SaveTheInternet appeared first on Opening Arguments.
5-10-2016 • 1 uur, 5 minuten, 40 seconden
OA14: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 1
In this episode, we try something a little bit different. Instead of simply analyzing a case, we let you play the role of Supreme Court Justice working your way through a difficult case that is currently pending before the Court: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. You’ll learn what kind of cases make their … Continue reading OA14: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 1 → The post OA14: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
28-9-2016 • 57 minuten, 54 seconden
OA13: Hillary Clinton’s Damned Emails!
In this episode, we delve — at long last, and just in time for the first Presidential debate — into the question of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. In particular, we answer the question: “did Hillary Clinton receive preferential treatment” when the … Continue reading OA13: Hillary Clinton’s Damned Emails! → The post OA13: Hillary Clinton’s Damned Emails! appeared first on Opening Arguments.
26-9-2016 • 1 uur, 11 minuten, 49 seconden
OA12: Tax Protesters, Sovereign Citizens, and Other Wackiness
In this episode, we delve into the wacky world of tax protesters and “sovereign citizens,” people who believe that the legal world is a magical place filled with secret code words that, if invoked properly, can force the Illuminati-run courts to admit you into the secret chamber where nobody has to pay their taxes or … Continue reading OA12: Tax Protesters, Sovereign Citizens, and Other Wackiness → The post OA12: Tax Protesters, Sovereign Citizens, and Other Wackiness appeared first on Opening Arguments.
21-9-2016 • 47 minuten, 1 seconde
OA11: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 3
In this week’s hour-length episode, we finally conclude our three-part discussion of abortion and defending the jurisprudence behind the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade… only to leave you with another cliffhanger and a topic for a future show. (Bingo!) Also, given our Patreon support, we’ll now be answering a viewer question every episode! In … Continue reading OA11: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 3 → The post OA11: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 3 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
14-9-2016 • 58 minuten, 3 seconden
OA10: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 2
Our discussion of abortion continues as we walk through the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade and its aftermath. In our first segment, “Closed Arguments” continues with a look at whether you should call your law professor by her first name. (No. No, you should not.) And in our closing segment, we answer a question … Continue reading OA10: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 2 → The post OA10: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
7-9-2016 • 44 minuten, 4 seconden
OA9: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 1
In Episodes 7 and 8, we discussed a recent decision by a federal court in Missouri dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging certain Missouri laws that arguably restrict abortion rights. In this episode, we take a step back and look at the right to abortion itself and the sometimes-controversial Supreme Court decision … Continue reading OA9: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 1 → The post OA9: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
31-8-2016 • 44 minuten, 10 seconden
OA8: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 2
In this episode, we wrap up the recent decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging several laws relating to getting an abortion in Missouri. Andrew tells you what “motions to dismiss” are, and Thomas proves that he knows more about the … Continue reading OA8: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 2 → The post OA8: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
25-8-2016 • 49 minuten, 43 seconden
OA7: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 1
In this episode, we look at a recent lawsuit filed by the notorious Satanic Temple challenging abortion restrictions in the state of Missouri. In the main segment, Andrew tells you how to read a Complaint, and Thomas offers advice to the Satanic Temple’s lawyers about which arguments are more persuasive to him. Our opening segment … Continue reading OA7: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 1 → The post OA7: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
24-8-2016 • 49 minuten, 18 seconden
OA6: The Pending NFL Apocalypse (with Chris Kristofco)
In this week’s episode, Andrew sits down in the interviewer’s chair and talks with Chris Kristofco, another real lawyer and the lead editor at Title Town Sound Off, a Green Bay Packers fan site. If you’ve been following the NFL’s investigation into alleged performance enhancing drugs use by several of its star players, you’ll enjoy … Continue reading OA6: The Pending NFL Apocalypse (with Chris Kristofco) → The post OA6: The Pending NFL Apocalypse (with Chris Kristofco) appeared first on Opening Arguments.
24-8-2016 • 42 minuten, 5 seconden
OA5: Bush v. Gore and the 2000 Election, Part 4
Finally wrapping up their four-part discussion of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, Andrew and Thomas follow the Gore campaign’s lawsuit as it goes to the Supreme Court. How legitimate is Bush v. Gore? Does it hold water? Find out in this episode. Show Notes & Links The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. … Continue reading OA5: Bush v. Gore and the 2000 Election, Part 4 → The post OA5: Bush v. Gore and the 2000 Election, Part 4 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
24-8-2016 • 38 minuten, 2 seconden
OA4: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 3
Continuing our discussion from OA3, Andrew lays the background for the most tumultuous Presidential election in modern American history, discussing the politics, history, and the legal background that led us to Bush v. Gore. Show Notes and Links Pres. Bill Clinton’s approval ratings, 1999-2000. Voting history for West Virginia, once a reliable Democratic stronghold. A … Continue reading OA4: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 3 → The post OA4: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 3 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
24-8-2016 • 31 minuten, 51 seconden
OA3: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 2
Andrew and Thomas continue their discussion of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, moving from resurrecting long-dead jokes about “hanging chads” to explaining how the legal challenge that could determine the Presidency began in a tiny county courthouse in Florida. Show Notes & Links The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Palm … Continue reading OA3: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 2 → The post OA3: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
24-8-2016 • 26 minuten, 11 seconden
OA2: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 1
On the last episode of Atheistically Speaking with Andrew Torrez (AS259), Andrew teased us with the promise that he’d be back to discuss what really happened back in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election (and promised that it might have something to do with our current Presidential election)! Well, Andrew’s back, and in Part 1, he and I … Continue reading OA2: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 1 → The post OA2: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.
24-8-2016 • 28 minuten, 47 seconden
OA1: “The Story Begins” – Introducing the Show & Segments
In this introductory pre-episode, Thomas and Andrew talk about their backgrounds and their vision for the show. We also preview our upcoming show segments and topics, tell you how to get in touch with us, and talk a little bit about how the show got started. Segments Listener Questions: We field a question from Eric … Continue reading OA1: “The Story Begins” – Introducing the Show & Segments → The post OA1: “The Story Begins” – Introducing the Show & Segments appeared first on Opening Arguments.