Opening Arguments (Opening Arguments Media LLC)

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Rules: click here to read Riddick's Senate Procedure, and here for the just-adopted S. Res. 438.
2. Strap in: this is the cargo cult Trump trial brief, and here are the House Articles of Impeachment.
3. 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).
4. Here's the interview reported by Politico in which Mulvaney conceded there was a quid pro quo (and "get over it")!
5. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

OA1115 - Matt joins for a special Wednesday to provide an initial review of some of the most notable of the 26 executive orders which Donald Trump signed after his inauguration on Monday. We go beyond the headlines to take a closer look at what is actually in these things, and try to sort the routine bluster from the very real threats. 

• “Undercover in Project 2025,” Center for Climate Reporting (8/15/2024)

• Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness – The White House (1/20/2025)

• Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House (1/20/2025)

• Initial Rescissions Of Harmful Executive Orders And Actions – The White House (1/20/25)

• Restoring Accountability To Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce – The White House (1/20/25)

• Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program – The White House (1/20/25)

• Guaranteeing The States Protection Against Invasion – The White House (1/20/25)

• Ending The Weaponization Of The Federal Government – The White House (1/20/25)

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!

**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

1. Click here to read the just-filed New York state lawsuit against Donald Trump, his kids, and the Trump Foundation.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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,
5. 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.
6. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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!

OA1116 - We take stock a few days into the second Trump administration to consider the current state of ICE enforcement, Trump’s blatantly unlawful overrule of the recent Supreme Court decision forcing the divestiture of TikTok, and the President’s new venture in cryptocurrency. Finally, today’s footnote honors the efforts of one person who is doing her part to write history as it happens.

• Judge John Coughenour’s injunction against Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship (1/23/25)

• SCOTUS decision in TikTok v. Garland (1/17/2025)

• “Application of Protecting America from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications to TikTok,” (1/20/2025) 

• $TRUMP coin price tracker

• “Enforcement Actions At Or Focused on Sensitive Locations” (original ICE “sensitive locations” memo)(10/24/2011)

• Final text of the Laken Riley Act (sent to the President 1/24/25)

• Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order on DOJ’s motion to dismiss in U.S. v. Gregory Mijares (1/23/25)

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!

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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

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

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

1. You too can read Colin Kaepernick's arbitration demand; we archived a copy of it here.
2. We first discussed Hillary Clinton's "damned emails" and the Comey investigation back in Episode 13.
3. Here is a link to the (almost entirely redacted) email chain regarding Comey's statement.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

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!

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. We broke down the CARES Act in Episode 372, and you can check out the final "no offset" provision here, on p. 154.
2. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed Trump's tariffs on China in episode 162
2. Trump's statement on Mexican tariffs is here
3. The prior authority relied upon by Trump is the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702
4. Click here to read a CNBC piece on the likelihood of a trade war.
5. You can read Vol I. and Vol. II of the Mueller in searchable PDF.
6. Here's the evidence C&B was fired.
7. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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

1. Here is a link to the 2013 UK Defamation Act.
2. This is the 2010 SPEECH Act,  28 U.S.C. § 4102.
3. And here is the SPLC's report on Maajid Nawaz labelling him an "anti-Muslim extremist.".
4. This is 18 U.S.C. § 873, the federal blackmail statute.
5. Here is a link to an informative Washington Post article about the CNN/HanAssholeSolo debacle.
6. And here is a link to the Ben Shapiro opinion piece in the National Review.
7. This is a link to the lawsuit filed by Murray against Oliver, which is a delightful read.
8. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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

1. This is a nice primer on the creation of the current federal judiciary, beginning with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789.
2. Here is a link to the decision by the Northern District of California enjoining the enforcement of EO 13768.
3. This link is to the text of EO 13768.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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?

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?

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

1. Here's a link to the German defamation law, which begins at section 185.
2. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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

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!

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

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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

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

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

1. This is the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, which is worth reading.
2. The underlying case is NC State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F. 3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016).
3. The Supreme Court's 2-line denial of the application to stay McCrory, 137 S.Ct. 27 (2016) is here.
4. This is a link to the "American News X" (wrong) "hot take."
5. You can read Prof. Eric Goldman's delightful law review article on emojis here.
6. And Denise recommends falling down the Wikipedia rabbit hole by reading the history of emojis.
7. This is the FTC complaint against Draft Kings and FanDuel.
8. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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

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

1. 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.
2. You can read California SB10, as well as check out the opposition from both Human Rights Watch and the ACLU.
3. Here is the full decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
4. 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.
5. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links

1. This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company!
2. 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.
3. This is the U.S. Attorneys' Manual; § 9-13.420 governs searching law firm offices.
4. Here's the report on Paul Ryan's fundraising from Politico, announced two days before he decided to retire.
5. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

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 openarguments@gmail.com

 

OA1091 - We are honored to welcome Somali-American author and advocate Abdi Nor Iftin for the first of a 2-part Thanksgiving episode dedicated with gratitude to the incredible efforts that so many naturalized Americans have made to be a part of this country. Abdi has recorded the full story of his life in his book Call Me American, in which he details the long journey from his escape from being forced into service as a child soldier in war-torn Somalia to his years as a refugee in Kenya before winning the U.S. diversity visa lottery and building a thoroughly American life in one of the last states you might expect. In this extended interview we get to know Abdi as he shares his story and his unique perspective on what the current American moment means for him and his community. 

• Call Me American: A Memoir,: Abdi Nor Iftin (2018)

• “Now is the time to buckle up and fight, not to flee,” Abdi Nor Iftin, The Forecaster (11/19/24)

• “Abdi and the Golden Ticket,”  This American Life (7/3/2015)

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!

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. 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.
2. This is the April 17, 2020 AP article suggesting that Biden may let Sanders keep his statewide delegates.
3. 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.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Click here to read the UK Supreme Court's ruling in Ashers Baking Co.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

 

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.

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. 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.
2. As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866).
3. 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).
4. 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!
5. 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.
6. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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 openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. If Paulie M flips, it will be to take advantage of Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
5. 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.
6. Here's Cohen's plea deal; here are the conditions of his release; and here's the article quoting his allocution.
7. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. 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 <<” box, registering with your email, and then selecting us in the drop-down boxes for “People’s Choice” and “News and Politics.” Thank you!!
2. We last discussed the Epstein case in Episode 259.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Here’s the Snopes article about face-swapping Clinton’s face over Trump’s.
6. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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!

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!

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.

1. Video of JD Vance badly mansplaining immigration law during the VP debate

2. Special counsel Jack Smith's Motion for Immunity Determinations (10/3/24)

3. Eric Adams’s motion to dismiss Count V of his pending indictment (9/30/24)

4. Petition to save Nibi the Beaver 

5. Governor Maura Healey’s late-breaking announcement re: the fate of Nibi the Beaver

6. 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!

OA1086 - We're modifying the schedule a little! Introducing fash-watch with Lydia. We're going to keep a very watchful eye on Trump's incoming government. We're starting this week with the EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and UN Ambassador Elise Stefanik.

But don't worry! After that, we're still on with Heather and the regularly scheduled bar exam failure! Make sure to find openargs on Bluesky and play T3BE there!

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!

 

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!

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

1. We first discussed cryptocurrency in OA 134.
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. This is Rod Rosenstein's Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it.
6. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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

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!

Appearances
Andrew 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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links
1. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

Download Link

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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!

 

 

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

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:

1. This is the link to the BCR/YAF (Ann Coulter) Complaint.
2. 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.
3. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), is the landmark Supreme Court case on time, place, and manner restrictions.
4. 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.
5. The authorizing regulation is 5 CCR § 100004.
6. 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).
7. 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 openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

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!

Appearances
Andrew 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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Here are the 14 states with Democratic legislatures and governors.
2. 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.
3. Click here to read Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820), the first case Andrew discussed.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

 

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

 

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 openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links

1. We broke down the "nuclear option" in Episode 59.  Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would not recess for the summer on June 5.
2. Here are the (generally reliable) Cook Political Report ratings of the 2018 Senate races.
3. This is the Mother Jones article on Anthony Kennedy's 2017-2018 votes.
4. This is the list of Trump's 25 potential Supreme Court nominees.
5. 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.
6. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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

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

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)

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!

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today!
2. 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.
3. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. You can read the Lawfareblog article that inspired Thomas S.'s question on impeachment.
2. This is the full text of the 2016 Republican platform.
3. 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.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

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

1. 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).
2. You can read the full text of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision in Doe v. Trump by clicking here.
3. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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!

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

1. We first discussed the thorny nature of what constitutes property way back in Episode 22, "Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad."
2. If you'd like to read the U.N. "Law of the Sea" Treaty, get ready to settle in for a lengthy read!
3. The two death penalty cases wediscuss are Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
4. The Huffington Post records Antonin Scalia's 2008 interview with Nina Totenberg approving of putting people in the stocks.
5. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

...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

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. On Epstein: you can read his (now-dismissed) SDNY indictment, as well as the news of its dismissal.
2. 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).
3. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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!

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!

Appearances
None!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links
1.18 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 openarguments@gmail.com

 

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

1. 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.
2. If you haven't yet watched Sen. Kennedy (R-LA) humiliate laughably unqualified former Trump federal judicial nominee Matthew Petersen, you really should.
3. You can read all about the hearing at Thomas's high school here.
4. Crazy person Greg Glaser is a serial blogger who writes about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology; and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution.
5.  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 openarguments@gmail.com

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!

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!

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

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)!

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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:

1. 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.
2. King v. Whitmer transcript of the sanctions hearing.
3. 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.
4. Donald Campbell's brief on behalf of Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, and the rest of the Kraken idiots.
5. 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).
6. The City of Detroit's (a) Safe Harbor letter and attached motion; and (b) supplemental brief (that's fire)!
7. Remember all of this is about Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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

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!

OA1103 - Is human intelligence necessarily more rational and just than artificial intelligence? How involved should AI be in our law and government? Professor Aziz Huq of the University of Chicago School of Law joins for a fascinating conversation about everything from the “right to a human decision” to the dystopian terrors of Tinder.

• “A Right to a Human Decision,” Aziz Huq, Virginia Law Review (2020)

• “The Geopolitics of Digital Regulation,” Aziz Huq (2024)

• “Chinese scientists develop AI ‘prosecutor' that can press its own charges,” Steven Chen, South China  Morning Post (2021)

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!

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 openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed the "Ann Coulter" lawsuit during Episode 73; if you want to read the latest ruling, it's embedded in this article.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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."
6. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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

1. Here is a link to the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision.
2. 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.
3. This is the letter that the Missouri Attorney General sent indicating that, post-election, Missouri would change its policy.
4. Here is a link to the Supreme Court's decision allowing most of EO 13780 to go into effect.
5. 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 openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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!

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 openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links

1. 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.
2. Click here if you want to read the Comey memos.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Click here to read the House's filing before the D.C. Circuit in the McGahn subpoena litigation.
2. In the battle of expert turncoats, we have Noah Feldman arguing that Trump hasn't been impeached, and Jonathan Turley arguing that he has.
3. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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 openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. 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.
2. 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!)
3. 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!
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!

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

1. Here's the Raw Story report on disqualified Trump electors, and the full text of the report can be downloaded from Alternet.
2. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page.
3. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause.
4. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here.
8. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here.
9. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here.
10. 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 openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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 openarguments@gmail.com

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

1. 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."
2. This is the Yahoo News article about Ivey.
3. Here are the New York bar exam results, courtesy of Above the Law.
4. 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.
5. The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121.
6. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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!

Appearances
None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

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 openarguments@gmail.com

 

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

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!

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

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

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