Mitchell Epner

Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Mitchell Epner for an episode dedicated to understanding the right wing's latest distractions, including their bizarre and wrong argument that the DOJ corruptly agreed to funnel a sweetheart deal to Hunter Biden. Find out the truth - including why Hunter Biden's lawyers rejected the plea deal! - in this episode.  You won't want to miss it!  -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at 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: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA793: The Right-Wing Freakout, Or, Why Hunter Biden Rejected His Plea Deal (feat. Mitchell Epner)

We're back to a Trump show as Liz and Andrew break down the latest Trump filing in the Southern District of Florida documents case before moving on to DC to discuss Co-Conspirators 2 and 5, John Eastman and Ken Chesebro, particularly in light of the latest email discovered in which the Cheese suggests everybody ought to do some light criming! Notes  US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/   SDFL order striking GJ evidence  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf    Trump Objection to Proposed Protective Order  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.104.0.pdf    Eastman motion to stay disbarment  https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23901160/sbc-23-o-30029-respondents-motion-for-abatement-of-state-bar-disciplinary-proceeding-declaration-of-zachary-mayer.pdf    Trump DC docket  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&amp;filed_before=&amp;entry_gte=&amp;entry_lte=&amp;order_by=desc   Greg Jacob Jan 6 testimony  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479.pdf   Chesebro Dec. 6 memo  https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/chesebro-dec-6-memo/ce55d6abd79c2c71/full.pdf   OA 782,  Debunking Hawaii 1960 Precedent  https://openargs.com/oa782-no-shut-up-republicans-do-not-get-to-steal-elections-because-of-hawaii-in-1960/  -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

We're back to a Trump show as Liz and Andrew break down the latest Trump filing in the Southern District of Florida documents case before moving on to DC to discuss Co-Conspirators 2 and 5, John Eastman and Ken Chesebro, particularly in light of the latest email discovered in which the Cheese suggests everybody ought to do some light criming! Notes  US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/</a> SDFL order striking GJ evidence <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf</a> Trump Objection to Proposed Protective Order <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.104.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.104.0.pdf</a> Eastman motion to stay disbarment <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23901160/sbc-23-o-30029-respondents-motion-for-abatement-of-state-bar-disciplinary-proceeding-declaration-of-zachary-mayer.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23901160/sbc-23-o-30029-respondents-motion-for-abatement-of-state-bar-disciplinary-proceeding-declaration-of-zachary-mayer.pdf</a>  Trump DC docket <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&amp;filed_before=&amp;entry_gte=&amp;entry_lte=&amp;order_by=desc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&amp;filed_before=&amp;entry_gte=&amp;entry_lte=&amp;order_by=desc</a> Greg Jacob Jan 6 testimony <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479.pdf</a> Chesebro Dec. 6 memo <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/chesebro-dec-6-memo/ce55d6abd79c2c71/full.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/chesebro-dec-6-memo/ce55d6abd79c2c71/full.pdf</a> OA 782,  Debunking Hawaii 1960 Precedent <a href="https://openargs.com/oa782-no-shut-up-republicans-do-not-get-to-steal-elections-because-of-hawaii-in-1960/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://openargs.com/oa782-no-shut-up-republicans-do-not-get-to-steal-elections-because-of-hawaii-in-1960/</a> -Support us on Patreon: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA792: Eastman & The Cheese - The Anatomy Of Co-Conspirators Two and Five

Yes, you read that correctly. This is a classic OA deep dive, in which Liz and Andrew break down a disturbing sanctions order issued by a Trump-appointed judge in Texas who, all on his own, decided to order Southwest Airlines to fly out a bigot from the Alliance Defending Freedom to teach their lawyers how to be bigots.     It's bad.  Notes Geidner substack  https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-orders-adf-religious-liberty-training   Carter Amended Complaint  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.9.0.pdf   Carter Jury verdict  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.348.0.pdf   Court Dec. 5, 2022 Order  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.374.0_1.pdf   Southwest email of “Recent Court Decision”  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.383.2.pdf   Southwest Opposition  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.394.0.pdf   SPLC on ADF  https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom   ADF intervention brief  https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/adf-ap-and-others-v-france-echr-brief.pdf  -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Yes, you read that correctly. This is a classic OA deep dive, in which Liz and Andrew break down a disturbing sanctions order issued by a Trump-appointed judge in Texas who, all on his own, decided to order Southwest Airlines to fly out a bigot from the Alliance Defending Freedom to teach their lawyers how to be bigots.   It's bad. Notes Geidner substack <a href="https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-orders-adf-religious-liberty-training" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-orders-adf-religious-liberty-training</a> Carter Amended Complaint <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.9.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.9.0.pdf</a> Carter Jury verdict <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.348.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.348.0.pdf</a> Court Dec. 5, 2022 Order <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.374.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.374.0_1.pdf</a> Southwest email of “Recent Court Decision” <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.383.2.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.383.2.pdf</a> Southwest Opposition <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.394.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.394.0.pdf</a> SPLC on ADF <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom</a> ADF intervention brief <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/adf-ap-and-others-v-france-echr-brief.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/adf-ap-and-others-v-france-echr-brief.pdf</a> -Support us on Patreon: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA791: Trump Judge Orders Religious "Sensitivity" Training From A Hate Group

Liz and Andrew compare and contrast procedural motions in both the Southern District of Florida (the document retention case) and the District of Columbia (the conspiracy to overthrow the elections case). What does a motion for a protective order tell us about how Special Counsel Jack Smith intends to prosecute both cases? Listen and find out!   In the Patreon bonus, Liz updates us on developments in the E. Jean Carroll trial.   Notes US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/   Cannon 8/7 order striking pleadings  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf   TRUMP RESPONSE TO PROTECTIVE ORDER  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.14.0_5.pdf   Fed R. Crim. P. 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6   OA 788  https://openargs.com/oa788-all-my-conflicts-a-discussion-of-trumps-lawyers-more-feat-mitchell-epner/   -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Liz and Andrew compare and contrast procedural motions in both the Southern District of Florida (the document retention case) and the District of Columbia (the conspiracy to overthrow the elections case). What does a motion for a protective order tell us about how Special Counsel Jack Smith intends to prosecute both cases? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz updates us on developments in the E. Jean Carroll trial. Notes US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/</a> Cannon 8/7 order striking pleadings <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf</a> TRUMP RESPONSE TO PROTECTIVE ORDER <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.14.0_5.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.14.0_5.pdf</a> Fed R. Crim. P. 6 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6</a> OA 788 <a href="https://openargs.com/oa788-all-my-conflicts-a-discussion-of-trumps-lawyers-more-feat-mitchell-epner/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://openargs.com/oa788-all-my-conflicts-a-discussion-of-trumps-lawyers-more-feat-mitchell-epner/</a> -Support us on Patreon: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA790: The Trump Prosecutions: A Tale of Two Courtooms

Liz and Andrew break down the weekend's developments in Trump's criminal case in DC for conspiring to steal the 2020 election, including a rundown of the terrible arguments being made by his newest lawyer, John Lauro.   Notes U.S. v. Trump docket  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&amp;filed_before=&amp;entry_gte=&amp;entry_lte=&amp;order_by=desc   US v. Trump motion for protective order  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.0_11.pdf    Proposed DOJ protective order - tracks Judge Nichols order  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.1_6.pdf   Trump motion for extension of time  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.11.0_2.pdf   DOJ opposition to Trump motion  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.12.0_1.pdf   Hammerschmidt v. US, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1069163203100596643   Rolling Stone, Jack Smith Has an Indictment. Trump Has a Massive Plan for Revenge   https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-jack-smith-indictment-jan6-justice-department-1234800968/  -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Liz and Andrew break down the weekend's developments in Trump's criminal case in DC for conspiring to steal the 2020 election, including a rundown of the terrible arguments being made by his newest lawyer, John Lauro. Notes U.S. v. Trump docket <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&amp;filed_before=&amp;entry_gte=&amp;entry_lte=&amp;order_by=desc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&amp;filed_before=&amp;entry_gte=&amp;entry_lte=&amp;order_by=desc</a> US v. Trump motion for protective order <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.0_11.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.0_11.pdf</a>  Proposed DOJ protective order - tracks Judge Nichols order <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.1_6.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.1_6.pdf</a> Trump motion for extension of time <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.11.0_2.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.11.0_2.pdf</a> DOJ opposition to Trump motion <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.12.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.12.0_1.pdf</a> Hammerschmidt v. US, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1069163203100596643" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1069163203100596643</a> Rolling Stone, Jack Smith Has an Indictment. Trump Has a Massive Plan for Revenge  <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-jack-smith-indictment-jan6-justice-department-1234800968/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-jack-smith-indictment-jan6-justice-department-1234800968/</a> -Support us on Patreon: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA789: Trump Lawyer Defends 'Aspirational' Coup Attempt

Liz and Andrew welcome back to the show Mitchell Epner, who helps break down today's arraignment of Donald Trump in DC, with a particular focus on the conflicts of interest surrounding Stan Woodward (in Florida) and Todd Blanche (in DC). Notes US v. Trump (DC) docket  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/   Blanche PHV  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.7.0.pdf US v. Trump (SDFL) Garcia motion  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.97.0.pdf US v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (1975) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2468718350509973831   Liz's Wonkette on “Free Speech” defense https://www.wonkette.com/p/no-shut-up-new-york-times-the-first  -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Liz and Andrew welcome back to the show Mitchell Epner, who helps break down today's arraignment of Donald Trump in DC, with a particular focus on the conflicts of interest surrounding Stan Woodward (in Florida) and Todd Blanche (in DC). Notes US v. Trump (DC) docket <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/</a> Blanche PHV <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.7.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.7.0.pdf</a> US v. Trump (SDFL) Garcia motion <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.97.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.97.0.pdf</a> US v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (1975) <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2468718350509973831" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2468718350509973831</a> Liz's Wonkette on “Free Speech” defense <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/p/no-shut-up-new-york-times-the-first" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.wonkette.com/p/no-shut-up-new-york-times-the-first</a> -Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA788: All My Conflicts: A Discussion of Trump's Lawyers & More (feat. Mitchell Epner)

It's INDICTMENT DAY! Liz and Andrew release an emergency episode one day early that tells you everything you need to know about the just-released Trump DC indictment!   Notes TRUMP DC Indictment  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf   J6 committee report  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf   Ricky Vaughn Complaint  https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2021/01/27/mackey_complaint_0.pdf    -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

It's INDICTMENT DAY! Liz and Andrew release an emergency episode one day early that tells you everything you need to know about the just-released Trump DC indictment! Notes TRUMP DC Indictment <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf</a> J6 committee report <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf</a> Ricky Vaughn Complaint <a href="https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2021/01/27/mackey_complaint_0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2021/01/27/mackey_complaint_0.pdf</a> -Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA787: Trump Indictment 3 - Because It's Still A Big Lie Even If You Pretend to Believe It

Liz and Andrew begin by discussing the latest developments in Fulton County, Georgia. No, it's not a Trump indictment - but it is the next best thing!   After that, the duo break down Trump's latest LOLsuit loss in Trump v. CNN, and discuss how Trump may aim to leverage that loss into an argument to overturn the most important Supreme Court case in terms of press freedom: New York Times v. Sullivan.   Notes OA 744  https://openargs.com/oa744-georgia-fake-electors-scheme-gets-real-feat-lawfares-anna-bower/   McBurney order denying Motion to Quash, Preclude, and Recuse  https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2057/EX-PARTE-FILING-7-31-23   Fulton County docket  http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc   Trump v. CNN complaint  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.1.0.pdf   Order dismissing Trump v. CNN  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.31.0_1.pdf   State v. Lampl, 770 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 2015)  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13555564276998303856   Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625   Carson Holloway, “Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan”, The American Conservative, Sep. 9, 2022.  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/overturn-new-york-times-v-sullivan/  -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Liz and Andrew begin by discussing the latest developments in Fulton County, Georgia. No, it's not a Trump indictment - but it is the next best thing! After that, the duo break down Trump's latest LOLsuit loss in Trump v. CNN, and discuss how Trump may aim to leverage that loss into an argument to overturn the most important Supreme Court case in terms of press freedom: New York Times v. Sullivan. Notes OA 744 <a href="https://openargs.com/oa744-georgia-fake-electors-scheme-gets-real-feat-lawfares-anna-bower/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://openargs.com/oa744-georgia-fake-electors-scheme-gets-real-feat-lawfares-anna-bower/</a> McBurney order denying Motion to Quash, Preclude, and Recuse <a href="https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2057/EX-PARTE-FILING-7-31-23" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2057/EX-PARTE-FILING-7-31-23</a> Fulton County docket <a href="http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc</a> Trump v. CNN complaint <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.1.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.1.0.pdf</a> Order dismissing Trump v. CNN <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.31.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.31.0_1.pdf</a> State v. Lampl, 770 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 2015) <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13555564276998303856" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13555564276998303856</a> Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957) <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625</a> Carson Holloway, “Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan”, The American Conservative, Sep. 9, 2022. <a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/overturn-new-york-times-v-sullivan/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://www.theamericanconservative.com/overturn-new-york-times-v-sullivan/</a> -Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA786: Can Donald Trump Really Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan?

Joe Dye

Liz and Andrew welcome a very special guest expert to break down redistricting in Alabama, Miami, and elsewhere in light of Allen v. Milligan. This is an unpaid post on Patreon.   Notes Grace, Inc. v. Miami  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372.94.0.pdf   Merrill v. Milligan (2022) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf   Allen v. Milligan (2023) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf  -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Liz and Andrew welcome a very special guest expert to break down redistricting in Alabama, Miami, and elsewhere in light of Allen v. Milligan. This is an unpaid post on Patreon. Notes Grace, Inc. v. Miami <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372.94.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372.94.0.pdf</a> Merrill v. Milligan (2022) <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf</a> Allen v. Milligan (2023) <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf</a> -Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA785: All Gerrymandering is Local (feat. Joe Dye)

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

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 <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.85.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.85.0_1.pdf</a> Trump Superseding indictment summary <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.86.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.86.0.pdf</a> -Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA784: Trump Sends Goons To Destroy The Evidence: Is That Bad?

Every episode, legal expert Andrew and comic relief Thomas will tackle a popular legal topic and give you all the tools you need to understand the issue and win every argument you have on Facebook, with your Uncle Frank, or wherever someone is wrong on the Internet. It's law.  It's politics.  It's fun.  We don't tell you what to think, we just set up the Opening Arguments.

No matter how many times Andrew comes to the correct (on paper) conclusion, he always manages to get upset (justified) when the “judges” pull the football away. Lately the “Andrew Was Wrong” segments are starting to feel like listening to a religious person beginning to realize just how deeply they’ve been taken advantage of and all that they’ve lost because of it. When the day comes that Thomas has to do a solo show because Andrew has had a break and run off into the sunset, I will be sad but not surprised. 

Here’s to better days; I’ll be back if November’s not a total clownhorn.

2020 Has Broken This Show

I know nothing about the law but this podcast will make you smarter about current events and legal arguments. It’s wonderful!

Great analysis

Opening Arguments

Adnan Syed

Today's super-sized show -- at long last! --  discusses season 1 of the Serial podcast.  Even if you haven't heard Serial, we think you'll enjoy this application of the principles of reasonable doubt. We begin with a discussion of the recent settlement between Evergreen College and Bret Weinstein.  Why does Andrew say this means the college valued Weinstein's alleged $3.8 million lawsuit at zero? In the main segment, Andrew goes through some of the issues behind the Serial and Undisclosed podcasts related to the Adnan Syed case. Next, Andrew does a mini-deep dive on patent law by looking at a strange recent deal between Allergan and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.  What in the world do these two entities have in common? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #42 regarding authentication of evidence.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on  Episode 11 of the Reasonable Risk podcast; go check it out! Show Notes &amp; Links  Andrew quoted extensively from State v. Earp, 319 Md. 156, 170-172 (1990) on witness coaching. This is  Allergan's press release regarding their deal to sell the patents to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. The two relevant sections from the U.S. Code relating to inter partes review are 35 USC § 102 (“no prior art”) and 35 USC § 103 (“non-obvious”). This  IP website has a brief discussion of the Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group case in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the inter partes review process is constitutional. The two recent patent cases discussed in the "C" segment are  Covidien, LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (Jan. 25, 2017) and NeoChord v. University of Maryland, Baltimore (May 23, 2017). For a refresher on sovereign immunity, you might want to check out Opening Arguments Episode #90. Finally, don't forget to check out and join the Opening Arguments Facebook Community!  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's super-sized show -- at long last! --  discusses season 1 of the Serial podcast.  Even if you haven't heard Serial, we think you'll enjoy this application of the principles of reasonable doubt. We begin with a discussion of the recent settlement between Evergreen College and Bret Weinstein.  Why does Andrew say this means the college valued Weinstein's alleged $3.8 million lawsuit at zero? In the main segment, Andrew goes through some of the issues behind the Serial and Undisclosed podcasts related to the Adnan Syed case. Next, Andrew does a mini-deep dive on patent law by looking at a strange recent deal between Allergan and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.  What in the world do these two entities have in common? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #42 regarding authentication of evidence.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on <a href="http://reasonableriskpodcast.com/rr-ep-11-podcast-lawyering-and-bibles-for-belgians-with-andrew-torrez" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Episode 11 of the Reasonable Risk podcast; go check it out</a>! Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>Andrew quoted extensively from <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10250398388456117636" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">State v. Earp</a>, 319 Md. 156, 170-172 (1990) on witness coaching.</li> <li>This is <a href="https://www.allergan.com/news/news/thomson-reuters/allergan-and-saint-regis-mohawk-tribe-announce-agr" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Allergan's press release regarding their deal to sell the patents</a> to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.</li> <li>The two relevant sections from the U.S. Code relating to inter partes review are <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">35 USC § 102</a> (“no prior art”) and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">35 USC § 103</a> (“non-obvious”).</li> <li>This <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/12/supreme-court-inter-partes-review-unconstitutional/id=84430/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> IP website has a brief discussion</a> of the Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group case in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the inter partes review process is constitutional.</li> <li>The two recent patent cases discussed in the "C" segment are <a href="https://sunsteinlaw.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Coviden_v_UFL.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Covidien, LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc.</a> (Jan. 25, 2017) and <a href="http://full.fitcheven.com/2E8FB4/assets/files/Documents/NeoChord,%20Inc.%20v.%20University%20of%20Maryland,%20Baltimore%20and%20Harpoon%20Medical,%20Inc.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">NeoChord v. University of Maryland, Baltimore</a> (May 23, 2017).</li> <li>For a refresher on sovereign immunity, you might want to check out <a href="http://openargs.com/oa90-pardon-yes-donald-trump-can-pardon/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Episode #90</a>.</li> <li>Finally, don't forget to check out and join the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/515127658824251/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Facebook Community</a>!</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA107:  Adnan Syed Obviously Did It (Also: You Can Learn About Patents!)

Today's episode features a long interview with AG, the spectacular co-host of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast.  She helps break down everything in the news that's Yodel Mountain-worthy... and along the way, you'll learn what might be next, what we might be overplaying, and much, much more! After the interview, it's time for the answer to Thomas (&amp; AG) Take The Bar Exam #114, in which you always bet on bank!.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Somewhat coincidentally, Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! Andrew was also a guest on Episode 87 of So Here's My Story.  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. 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 features a long interview with AG, the spectacular co-host of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast.  She helps break down everything in the news that's Yodel Mountain-worthy... and along the way, you'll learn what might be next, what we might be overplaying, and much, much more! After the interview, it's time for the answer to Thomas (&amp; AG) Take The Bar Exam #114, in which you always bet on bank!.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Somewhat coincidentally, Andrew was just a guest on <a href="https://t.co/VAhqeYwHjF" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">S3E6 of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out</a>! Andrew was also a guest on Episode 87 of <a href="https://soheresmystory.com/episode/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">So Here's My Story</a>.  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>. Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> Don't forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/YodelMountain" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA254: Mueller, She Wrote!

Today's emergency, late-breaking episode breaks down the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report and gives you some advance warning that the narrative on the Mueller report is about to shift very quickly in the opposite direction.  Get ahead of the story by listening today! Due to the length of the breakdown, we don't have our regular segments today, but we do have (as always), the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #119 regarding contracts for the sale of wheat.  Can Thomas keep his streak alive?  Listen and find out!  And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes &amp; Links 1. This is the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report. 2. Ken Dilanian's tweet.  3. Glenn Greenwald's tweet.  4. We discussed disaggregation of the investigations in  Episode OA: 259. 5. Confirms the Senate Intelligence Committee report we talked about in  Episode OA: 190. 6. Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s  OPEN SDNY criminal trial as of 1/8/2019 for obstruction of justice. 7. Mueller’s NFL report is here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's emergency, late-breaking episode breaks down <a href="http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Barr-Summary.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report</a> and gives you some advance warning that the narrative on the Mueller report is about to shift very quickly in the opposite direction.  Get ahead of the story by listening today! Due to the length of the breakdown, we don't have our regular segments today, but we do have (as always), the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #119 regarding contracts for the sale of wheat.  Can Thomas keep his streak alive?  Listen and find out!  And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>. Show Notes &amp; Links 1. This is the <a href="http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Barr-Summary.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Barr Summary</a> of the Mueller Report. 2. Ken Dilanian's <a href="https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1109904678987411456" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tweet</a>. 3. Glenn Greenwald's <a href="https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1110173016674258944" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tweet</a>. 4. We discussed disaggregation of the investigations in <a href="https://openargs.com/oa259-your-guide-to-the-congressional-investigations/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Episode OA: 259</a>. 5. Confirms the Senate Intelligence Committee report we talked about in <a href="https://openargs.com/oa190-good-news-everyone-on-abortion-rights-more/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Episode OA: 190</a>. 6. Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/russian-attorney-natalya-veselnitskaya-charged-obstruction-justice-connection-civil" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> OPEN SDNY </a>criminal trial as of 1/8/2019 for obstruction of justice. 7. Mueller’s NFL report is <a href="http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2015/01/08/0ap3000000455484.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> Don't forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/YodelMountain" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA264: The Barr Summary of the Mueller Report

Katy Perry

Today's episode checks in on the record-setting $5 billion settlement that Facebook reached with the Federal Trade Commission for, among other things, violating a prior consent order by enabling developers like Cambridge Analytica to access your data without your permission. Is this a good deal for American consumers? It's complicated. Oh, and you also get more music law with Katy Perry, and so much more!   We begin with an update on the Senate's last-ditch push to nominate more than a dozen new Trump nominees for lifetime appointments on the federal bench. And yes, despite widespread opposition, despite minimal credentials in many cases, and despite all of them having disqualifying right-wing ideologies... all were confirmed before the Senate decided to take a break. (Sorry for the bad news.)   Then, it's time for the deep dive into the Facebook-FTC settlement, which does indeed impose the single largest penalty ever for a consumer protection violation. Learn why the Democratic minority at the FTC thought it wasn't enough, and along the way you'll learn a lot about the FTC.   After that, it's time to revisit music law, this time with a jury verdict that Katy Perry violated the copyright of Christian rapper Flame. Andrew gives you the law, and Thomas gives you the music -- you won't want to miss this segment!   Then -- as if that wasn't enough -- it's time for the answer to a brand-new #T3BE involving beer, the Constitution, and the notions of justiciability and ripeness. It's not quite as good as having a beer, but it's still a good segment!   Appearances   None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.   Show Notes &amp; Links    Don’t forget that there are just 2 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Click  here to read the FTC-Facebook settlement; click  here for the Slaughter dissent; and  here for the Chopra dissent. And then don't forget all the Katy Perry pleadings, including (a) the lawsuit; (b) the  jury verdict; (c) the  proposed jury instructions; and (d) the  proposed damages instructions.    -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode checks in on the record-setting $5 billion settlement that Facebook reached with the Federal Trade Commission for, among other things, violating a prior consent order by enabling developers like Cambridge Analytica to access your data without your permission. Is this a good deal for American consumers? It's complicated. Oh, and you also get more music law with Katy Perry, and so much more! We begin with an update on the Senate's last-ditch push to nominate more than a dozen new Trump nominees for lifetime appointments on the federal bench. And yes, despite widespread opposition, despite minimal credentials in many cases, and despite all of them having disqualifying right-wing ideologies... all were confirmed before the Senate decided to take a break. (Sorry for the bad news.) Then, it's time for the deep dive into the Facebook-FTC settlement, which does indeed impose the single largest penalty ever for a consumer protection violation. Learn why the Democratic minority at the FTC thought it wasn't enough, and along the way you'll learn a lot about the FTC. After that, it's time to revisit music law, this time with a jury verdict that Katy Perry violated the copyright of Christian rapper Flame. Andrew gives you the law, and Thomas gives you the music -- you won't want to miss this segment! Then -- as if that wasn't enough -- it's time for the answer to a brand-new #T3BE involving beer, the Constitution, and the notions of justiciability and ripeness. It's not quite as good as having a beer, but it's still a good segment! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>. Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>Don’t forget that there are just 2 tickets remaining for <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/opening-arguments-live-in-nyc-tickets-65472509037" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets</a> before they’re gone!</li> <li>Click <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1536946/092_3184_facebook_majority_statement_7-24-19.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> here to read the FTC-Facebook settlement</a>; click <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1536918/182_3109_slaughter_statement_on_facebook_7-24-19.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> here for the Slaughter dissent</a>; and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1536911/chopra_dissenting_statement_on_facebook_7-24-19.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> here for the Chopra dissent</a>.</li> <li>And then don't forget all the Katy Perry pleadings, including (a) the <a href="http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Katy-Perry-complaint.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lawsuit</a>; (b) the <a href="http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Katy-Perry-jury-verdict.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> jury verdict</a>; (c) the <a href="http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Katy-Perry-proposed-jury-instructions.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> proposed jury instructions</a>; and (d) the <a href="http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Katy-Perry-proposed-damages.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> proposed damages</a> instructions.</li> </ol> -Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a>, and don’t forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/YodelMountain" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>!

OA303: Katy Perry & Facebook

This rapid-response bonus episode tackles the Supreme Court's late-breaking stay of the 5th Circuit's opinion in June Medical Services v. Gee, with a particular emphasis on dissecting Justice Brett Kavanaugh's dissent.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out! We have also continued the episode with a deep dive into res judicata and the truly ominous implications of Kavanaugh's dissent at our Patreon page for supporters of the show at any level. Show Notes &amp; Links  Check out Episodes OA: 249 "Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today" and  OA 251 for reference to our past discussion on this cases. Click  here to read the Court's granting of the stay (which includes Kavanaugh's dissent), and here for the Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee.  This is the reply brief filed by the petitioners. Here is  the prior 2016 Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Download Link

This rapid-response bonus episode tackles the Supreme Court's late-breaking stay of the 5th Circuit's opinion in June Medical Services v. Gee, with a particular emphasis on dissecting Justice Brett Kavanaugh's dissent.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out! We have also continued the episode with a deep dive into res judicata and the truly ominous implications of Kavanaugh's dissent <a href="https://www.patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">at our Patreon page for supporters of the show</a> at any level. Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>Check out Episodes OA: 249 "<a href="https://openargs.com/oa249-overturning-roe-v-wade-starts-today/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today</a>" and <a href="https://openargs.com/oa251-gerrymandering-in-maryland-heads-back-to-scotus/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> OA 251</a> for reference to our past discussion on this cases.</li> <li>Click <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/18A774-June-Medical-Services-v.-Gee-Order.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> here to read the Court's granting of the stay</a> (which includes Kavanaugh's dissent), and here for the Supreme Court’s docket in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18a774.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">June Medical Services v. Gee</a>.</li> <li><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18A774/86620/20190201115254159_Reply%20ISO%20Emergency%20Application%20for%20Stay%20Pending%20Cert%20Final.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> This is the reply brief</a> filed by the petitioners.</li> <li>Here is <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12719084930434459940" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> the prior 2016 Supreme Court decision in </a>Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> Don't forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/YodelMountain" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a> <a href="http://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/http://media.blubrry.com/openargs/traffic.libsyn.com/openargs/251_Episode_251_and_a_half.mp3" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Download Link</a>

OA251.5 Abortion Special - More on June Medical Services v. Gee

Ann Coulter

Today's episode heads overseas to discuss foreign policy; specifically, the Trump administration's actions with respect to Iran and North and South Korea.  Is there a common thread here?  Listen and find out! First, though, we update you on the Young America Foundation lawsuit against the University of California at Berkeley regarding Ann Coulter and an (alleged) hidden Secret Evil Cabal Conspiracy to Silence Conservatives. After that, we crank up the time machine and go back... all the way back to World War II to discuss what happened on the Korean Peninsula that paved the way for the recent Panmunjom Declaration.  If you've ever wanted Opening Arguments to go all Ken Burns, well, this is the show for you! Then, we take a look at the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015 -- or, as Trump calls it, the "terrible Iran deal."  Is it a terrible deal?  What are the legal ramifications?  We've got you covered! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #75 about subsequent oral modifications to contract.  Don't forget to listen and find out why Andrew would have gotten this question wrong!  Also, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes &amp; Links  We first discussed the "Ann Coulter" lawsuit during  Episode 73; if you want to read the latest ruling, it's  embedded in this article. Click  here to read the Howard Levie law review article from the Akron Law Review, and here to read the final Armistice Agreement (drafted by Levie). This is the text of the original JCPOA; and click here to read the CFR's backgrounder on it that was referenced during the show. If you want the Washington Post's fact-checker article on Trump's statements about the JCPOA showing that virtually everything he's said is a lie, that's here. This is the  link that contains the letter written by the Obama Administration to then-Rep. Mike Pompeo describing the JCPOA as a "political document." Finally, if you want to read  the 1969 Vienna Convention, grab a tall beverage and curl up with it right here.  The actual treaty begins on page 384.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

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 (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> 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 <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>. Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>We first discussed the "Ann Coulter" lawsuit during <a href="https://openargs.com/oa73-berkeley-ann-coulter-free-speech-wguest-travis-wester/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Episode 73</a>; if you want to read the latest ruling, it's <a href="http://www.dailycal.org/2018/04/29/federal-judge-rules-uc-berkeley-must-face-free-speech-lawsuit/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> embedded in this article</a>.</li> <li>Click <a href="http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1368&amp;context=akronlawreview" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> here to read the Howard Levie law review article</a> from the Akron Law Review, and <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here to read the final Armistice Agreement</a> (drafted by Levie).</li> <li>This is the <a href="https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">text of the original JCPOA</a>; and <a href="https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/impact-iran-nuclear-agreement" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">click here to read the CFR's backgrounder</a> on it that was referenced during the show.</li> <li>If you want the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/09/fact-checking-president-trumps-reasons-for-leaving-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.9c9cd6424df1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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</a>.</li> <li>This is the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/state-department-iran-deal-not-legally-binding-signed/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> link that contains the letter written by the Obama Administration to then-Rep. Mike Pompeo</a> describing the JCPOA as a "political document."</li> <li>Finally, if you want to read <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT66922.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> the 1969 Vienna Convention, grab a tall beverage and curl up with it right here</a>.  The actual treaty begins on page 384.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> Don't forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/515127658824251/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA173: The Foreign Policy Show - Korea, Iran, and... Ann Coulter?

Travis Wester

In this episode, the guys engage in a discussion with actor Travis Wester, who criticized the show's coverage of the Berkeley College Republicans' lawsuit back in the "C" segment of  Episode #65. Travis comes on the show to criticize Berkeley's policy regarding the imposition of fees, while Andrew walks us through the various laws regarding the First Amendment's applicability to "time, place, and manner" restrictions in college classrooms. This episode went long, so we skipped our other segments, but obviously no Tuesday episode would be complete without the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question #25 about smokin' weed and crashin' cars. Recent Appearances: None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes &amp; Links Here are the resources discussed in this episode:  This is the link to the  BCR/YAF (Ann Coulter) Complaint.  Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) is the Supreme Court case decisively holding that campus groups allocating space in classrooms are a limited public forum.  Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), is the landmark Supreme Court case on time, place, and manner restrictions.  Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski, 643 F.Supp.2d 729 (D. Md. 2009) is the D.Md. case that is directly on point with a university that has the exact same policies as Berkeley. The authorizing regulation is  5 CCR § 100004. The 5th Circuit case to which Travis kept referring is Sonnier v. Crain, 613 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2010), the opinion of which was subsequently withdrawn in part by Sonnier v. Crain, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011). Finally, the Supreme Court case cited by Travis within the Sonnier opinion is Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), in which the Supreme Court held that content-based restrictions, including excessive security fees, violate the 1st Amendment.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

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 <a href="http://openargs.com/oa65-net-neutrality-became-selling-internet-choose-adventure-part-2-plus-ann-coulter/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Episode #65</a>. 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 &amp; Links Here are the resources discussed in this episode: <ol> <li>This is the link to the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2syzMZYL9R7NFZ3S2x2OUtsWlE/view" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> BCR/YAF (Ann Coulter) Complaint</a>.</li> <li><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5541076601148584638" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)</a> is the Supreme Court case decisively holding that campus groups allocating space in classrooms are a limited public forum.</li> <li><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2205493593660669069" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)</a>, is the landmark Supreme Court case on time, place, and manner restrictions.</li> <li><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3792712899688468833" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski, 643 F.Supp.2d 729 (D. Md. 2009)</a> is the <a href="http://D.Md" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">D.Md</a>. case that is directly on point with a university that has the exact same policies as Berkeley.</li> <li>The authorizing regulation is <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I0BDFCA30D48811DEBC02831C6D6C108E?viewType=FullText&amp;originationContext=documenttoc&amp;transitionType=CategoryPageItem&amp;contextData=(sc.Default)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> 5 CCR § 100004</a>.</li> <li>The 5th Circuit case to which Travis kept referring is <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17451559927164229330" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sonnier v. Crain</a>, 613 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2010), the opinion of which was subsequently withdrawn in part by <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8876943027319583369" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sonnier v. Crain, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011)</a>.</li> <li>Finally, the Supreme Court case cited by Travis within the Sonnier opinion is <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15663411359492122494" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)</a>, in which the Supreme Court held that content-based restrictions, including excessive security fees, violate the 1st Amendment.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a> <a href="http://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/http://media.blubrry.com/openargs/traffic.libsyn.com/openargs/73_Episode_73.mp3" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">Direct Download</a>

OA73: Berkeley, Ann Coulter, and Free Speech (w/guest Travis Wester)

Clarence Thomas

Today's episode breaks down the statement made this week by Robert Mueller in connection with his report and investigation. Is it a good sign? Is it a bad sign? Is it both? Listen and find out!   We begin, however, with a bit of housekeeping, including a recommendation that you check out Episode 194 of Serious Inquiries Only (featuring Eli Bosnick!) for the official OA answer to all things milkshaking. We also preview a bit of next week's show, which involves revisiting Eddie Lampert, Steve Mnuchin, and the alleged looting of Sears. Is it worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.)   Next, we check in on four Supreme Court orders that relate to gerrymandering. Is that worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.)   After all that, we're not even halfway done! Our main segment breaks down the Supreme Court's brief, two-page per curiam order in Box v. Planned Parenthood... and the sprawling, nonsensical 20-page concurrence written by Clarence Thomas that literally repeats David Barton-level falsehoods. You'll be angry, but you won't want to miss it.   Then, it's time to Yodel! We carefully break down Robert Mueller's statement regarding his investigation and what it means for the future. In so doing, we also analyze Mueller's claims regarding the now-infamous 2000 OLC memo as to whether a sitting president can be indicted.   After all that, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy criminal effort to steal money from a fast-food drive-through by pretending to have a sniper... look, you'll just have to listen and play along, okay?!?   Appearances   None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.   Show Notes &amp; Links    For the correct take on milkshaking, check out Serious Inquiries Only Episode 194 with Eli Bosnick. We first covered the alleged looting of Sears by Eddie Lampert and Steve Mnuchin in Episode 273 and that was picked up by our friends Elizabeth Warren and AOC. These are the four orders the Supreme Court granted in gerrymandering cases: A.  HOUSEHOLDER, LARRY, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL. B.  CHABOT, STEVE, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL C.  MICHIGAN SENATE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. D.  CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. Click here to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood Click here for the peer-reviewed research showing that Sanger was not a eugenicist; and here for the article showing she wasn’t a racist. This is a  transcript of Robert Mueller’s testimony and this is the  2000 OLC Memo.    Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community!   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode breaks down the statement made this week by Robert Mueller in connection with his report and investigation. Is it a good sign? Is it a bad sign? Is it both? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a bit of housekeeping, including a recommendation that you check out Episode 194 of Serious Inquiries Only (featuring Eli Bosnick!) for the official OA answer to all things milkshaking. We also preview a bit of next week's show, which involves revisiting Eddie Lampert, Steve Mnuchin, and the alleged looting of Sears. Is it worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) Next, we check in on four Supreme Court orders that relate to gerrymandering. Is that worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) After all that, we're not even halfway done! Our main segment breaks down the Supreme Court's brief, two-page per curiam order in Box v. Planned Parenthood... and the sprawling, nonsensical 20-page concurrence written by Clarence Thomas that literally repeats David Barton-level falsehoods. You'll be angry, but you won't want to miss it. Then, it's time to Yodel! We carefully break down Robert Mueller's statement regarding his investigation and what it means for the future. In so doing, we also analyze Mueller's claims regarding the now-infamous 2000 OLC memo as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. After all that, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy criminal effort to steal money from a fast-food drive-through by pretending to have a sniper... look, you'll just have to listen and play along, okay?!? Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>. Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>For the correct take on milkshaking, check out Serious Inquiries Only <a href="https://seriouspod.com/sio194-milkshaking-with-eli-bosnick/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Episode 194</a> with Eli Bosnick.</li> <li>We first covered the alleged looting of Sears by Eddie Lampert and Steve Mnuchin in <a href="https://openargs.com/oa273-sears-steve-mnuchin-the-producers/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Episode 273</a> and that was picked up by our friends <a href="https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1131534446044352513" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Elizabeth Warren and AOC</a>.</li> <li>These are the four orders the Supreme Court granted in gerrymandering cases: A. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052419zr_09m1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> HOUSEHOLDER, LARRY, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL.</a> B. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052419zr1_e1p3.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> CHABOT, STEVE, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL</a> C. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052419zr2_4357.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> MICHIGAN SENATE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL.</a> D. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052419zr3_o758.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL.</a></li> <li>Click <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood</li> <li>Click <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3884362" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> for the peer-reviewed research showing that Sanger was not a eugenicist; and <a href="http://www.publicseminar.org/2018/09/heroes-but-not-saints/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> for the article showing she wasn’t a racist.</li> <li>This is a <a href="https://www.axios.com/mueller-statement-transcript-c1609594-ff8d-4824-abec-4f7415833129.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> transcript</a> of Robert Mueller’s testimony and this is the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> 2000 OLC Memo</a>.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a>, and don't forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/YodelMountain" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>!

OA283: Mueller Speaks! (& Clarence Thomas Pens a Nonsensical Concurrence)

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this week’s episode, we tackle the legal and philosophical issues underlying libertarianism.  We take on such issues as :  what is “property,” why is it a right, and is it cognizable as a side-constraint against government action?   At the end of the day, … Continue reading OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad → The post OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad appeared first on Opening Arguments.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! <a href="https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs</a> In this week’s episode, we tackle the legal and philosophical issues underlying libertarianism.  We take on such issues as :  what is “property,” why is it a right, and is it cognizable as a side-constraint against government action?   At the end of the day, … <a href="http://openargs.com/oa22-libertarianism-bad-feel-bad/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Continue reading OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad →</a> The post <a href="http://openargs.com/oa22-libertarianism-bad-feel-bad/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad</a> appeared first on <a href="http://openargs.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments</a>.

OA22:  Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad

If you or anyone you know has ever cared what color the fringe on the U.S. flag is, you will not want to miss this episode.  Yes, by popular request, we once again tackle the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizen loons! First, though, the guys read a listener comment from Tony Wall who actually toured with KISS (!!) and can give us some insight as to Gene Simmons's copyright practices. In the main segment, Andrew walks through Gray v. Texas, a 2009 decision of the Texas Court of Appeals that delightfully debunks a great many "sovereign citizen" claims. Next, the guys answer a question from Revan, who wants to know whether criminal and civil cases wind up in the same courtroom or even in front of the same judge. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #38 about the admissibility of prior consistent statements by a witness.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Show Notes &amp; Links  You will absolutely want to read Gray v. Texas! And here is a link to the David Hall DUI hearing in which the judge delightfully deals with sovereign citizen nonsense.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

If you or anyone you know has ever cared what color the fringe on the U.S. flag is, you will not want to miss this episode.  Yes, by popular request, we once again tackle the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizen loons! First, though, the guys read a listener comment from Tony Wall who actually toured with KISS (!!) and can give us some insight as to Gene Simmons's copyright practices. In the main segment, Andrew walks through <a href="http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/tx-sovereign.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Gray v. Texas</a>, a 2009 decision of the Texas Court of Appeals that delightfully debunks a great many "sovereign citizen" claims. Next, the guys answer a question from Revan, who wants to know whether criminal and civil cases wind up in the same courtroom or even in front of the same judge. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #38 about the admissibility of prior consistent statements by a witness.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>You will absolutely want to read <a href="http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/tx-sovereign.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Gray v.</a> <a href="http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/tx-sovereign.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Texas</a>!</li> <li>And here is <a href="https://youtu.be/C7h7uevwxt8?t=38" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a link to the David Hall DUI hearing in which the judge delightfully</a> deals with sovereign citizen nonsense.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a> <a href="http://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/http://media.blubrry.com/openargs/traffic.libsyn.com/openargs/98_Episode_98.mp3" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Direct Download</a>

OA98:  More Sovereign Citizen Madness!

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 &amp; Links    Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today! This is  the WIRED article we referenced on the technical data regarding SCIFs, and these are  the 174-page technical guidelines set forth by the DNI. Laws! Obstruction of justice is 18 U.S.C. § 1505, bribery is 18 U.S.C. § 201, and the relevant portion of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is 2 U.S.C. § 683.    -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law   -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs   -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!   -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki   -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

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 <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>. Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>Share out the <a href="https://openargs.com/the-ten-crimes-of-trump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Episode 324 super-transcript</a> with your favorite Uncle Frank today!</li> <li>This is <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/republicans-storm-scif-national-security-nightmare/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> the WIRED article we referenced on the technical data</a> regarding SCIFs, and these are <a href="https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/Technical-Specifications-SCIF-Construction.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> the 174-page technical guidelines</a> set forth by the DNI.</li> <li>Laws! Obstruction of justice is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">18 U.S.C. § 1505</a>, bribery is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">18 U.S.C. § 201</a>, and the relevant portion of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/683" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is 2 U.S.C. § 683</a>.</li> </ol> -Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/law</a> -Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> -Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a>, and don’t forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/YodelMountain" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! -For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> -And finally, remember that you can email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>!

OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan

Randall Eliason

Today's breaking news episode contains a long interview with everyone's favorite former prosecutor, Randall Eliason, who helps answer some nagging questions about what we do know about the Mueller Report (alongside all the things we don't). We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right (about the Barr Summary and the news cycle!) and Wrong (about the specifics of the Assange indictment). Then, it's time for our main segment with Professor Eliason; you won't want to miss it! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #120 involving touching a very sensitive woman on the bus.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing Utah referendums, and Episode 188 of God Awful Movies (reviewing "Dead Man Rising").  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes &amp; Links [None] Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's breaking news episode contains a long interview with everyone's favorite former prosecutor, Randall Eliason, who helps answer some nagging questions about what we do know about the Mueller Report (alongside all the things we don't). We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right (about the Barr Summary and the news cycle!) and Wrong (about the specifics of the Assange indictment). Then, it's time for our main segment with Professor Eliason; you won't want to miss it! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #120 involving touching a very sensitive woman on the bus.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on <a href="http://glassboxpodcast.libsyn.com/ep-19-utah-theodemocracy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast</a> discussing Utah referendums, and <a href="https://audioboom.com/posts/7212497-gam188-dead-man-rising" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Episode 188 of God Awful Movies</a> (reviewing "Dead Man Rising").  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>. Show Notes &amp; Links [None] Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> Don't forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/YodelMountain" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! For show-related questions, check out the <a href="http://openargswiki.wikidot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments Wiki</a>, which now has its own Twitter feed!  <a href="http://twitter.com/oawiki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@oawiki</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA265: The Investigation is Over, But the Investigations Continue (feat. Randall Eliason)

Neil Gorsuch

Today's episode tackles the recent (and shocking) Supreme Court decision in which Neil Gorsuch voted with the Court's liberal justices to produce a very unusual 5-4 alignment.  Is this a sign that Gorsuch isn't the right-wing hack we all thought he was?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  No.) After that, we break down the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G &amp; G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., the first decision of its kind recognizing that discrimination on the basis of an individual who is transgender or transitioning violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After that, we answer a listener question about selecting a contingent fee attorney and discuss some of the actual pitfalls as well as misconceptions about those lawyers who take "no money down!" Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #72 about real property and the transfer of a deed.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes &amp; Links  We first warned you about Neil Gorusch way back in Episode 40, and we're definitely not backing down now.  If you want to check out his concurrence, you can click here to read the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya.  And, as we discussed on the show, the should-have-been-straightforward holding of this case stems directly from the Court's prior opinion in Johnson v. United States. You can read the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G &amp; G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., and for more coverage of Title VII, check out our discussion of Hively v. Ivy Tech from Episode 60, as well as our most recent update in Episode 152.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's episode tackles the recent (and shocking) Supreme Court decision in which Neil Gorsuch voted with the Court's liberal justices to produce a very unusual 5-4 alignment.  Is this a sign that Gorsuch isn't the right-wing hack we all thought he was?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  No.) After that, we break down the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in <a href="http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0045p-06.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">EEOC v. R.G &amp; G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.</a>, the first decision of its kind recognizing that discrimination on the basis of an individual who is transgender or transitioning violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After that, we answer a listener question about selecting a contingent fee attorney and discuss some of the actual pitfalls as well as misconceptions about those lawyers who take "no money down!" Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #72 about real property and the transfer of a deed.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> 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 <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>. Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>We first warned you about Neil Gorusch <a href="https://openargs.com/oa40-neil-gorsuch-scared/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">way back in Episode 40</a>, and we're definitely not backing down now.  If you want to check out his concurrence, you can click <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here to read the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya</a>.  And, as we discussed on the show, the should-have-been-straightforward holding of this case stems directly from the Court's prior opinion in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Johnson v. United States</a>.</li> <li>You can read the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in <a href="http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0045p-06.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">EEOC v. R.G &amp; G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.</a>, and for more coverage of Title VII, check out our discussion of Hively v. Ivy Tech from <a href="https://openargs.com/oa60-sex-sexual-orientation/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Episode 60</a>, as well as our most recent update in <a href="https://openargs.com/oa152-discrimination-dicks/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Episode 152</a>.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> Don't forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/515127658824251/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA Facebook Community</a>! And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA167:  Neil Gorsuch, Secret Liberal?

Betsy DeVos

In today's episode, we examine one of the favorite policy recommendations of President Trump's Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos:  the school voucher.  What is it?  Is it constitutional?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where Andrew looks at a popular Twitter account's explanation of the odd fact that Donald Trump filed his re-election papers four years early.  Is there some nefarious purpose to him having done so, or is this innocuous?  We break down the law so you'll be armed with the information you need to navigate these kinds of claims. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), the most recent Supreme Court case to consider school vouchers, with a focus on whether providing federal tax dollars to private religious institutions violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After our main segment, we turn to a question from ex-Mormon about the infamous "Mormon Extermination Order," an executive order (No. 44) signed by Missouri Gov. Lilburn Boggs in 1838.  This dovetails with a two-hour discussion of the Order between Andrew and host Bryce Blankenagel during episode 47 of the "Naked Mormonism" podcast, which you should definitely check out by clicking here. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #9 about joint tenancy.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes &amp; Links  The "Resisterhood" tweets are here.  Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). This is the original, hand-written text of  Missouri Executive Order 44 (the "Mormon Extermination Order"). The main page for the "Naked Mormonism" podcast is here; and Andrew was on Epsiode 47, which you can download here.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In today's episode, we examine one of the favorite policy recommendations of President Trump's Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos:  the school voucher.  What is it?  Is it constitutional?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where Andrew looks at a popular Twitter account's explanation of the odd fact that Donald Trump filed his re-election papers four years early.  Is there some nefarious purpose to him having done so, or is this innocuous?  We break down the law so you'll be armed with the information you need to navigate these kinds of claims. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), the most recent Supreme Court case to consider school vouchers, with a focus on whether providing federal tax dollars to private religious institutions violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After our main segment, we turn to a question from ex-Mormon about the infamous "Mormon Extermination Order," an executive order (No. 44) signed by Missouri Gov. Lilburn Boggs in 1838.  This dovetails with a two-hour discussion of the Order between Andrew and host Bryce Blankenagel during episode 47 of the "Naked Mormonism" podcast, which you should definitely check out by <a href="http://nakedmormonismpodcast.com/episodes.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">clicking here</a>. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #9 about joint tenancy.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and/or our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>The <a href="https://twitter.com/resisterhood/status/825435325535252480" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Resisterhood" tweets are here</a>.</li> <li><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=127516650659374253" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)</a>.</li> <li>This is the original, hand-written text of <a href="http://www.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/archives/resources/findingaids/miscMormRecs/eo/18381027_ExtermOrder.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Missouri Executive Order 44</a> (the "Mormon Extermination Order").</li> <li>The main page for the <a href="http://nakedmormonismpodcast.com/index.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Naked Mormonism" podcast is here</a>; and Andrew was on <a href="http://nakedmormonismpodcast.com/episodes.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Epsiode 47, which you can download here</a>.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA41: Betsy DeVos and School Vouchers

Should you take legal advice from a viral video on YouTube? Today's episode is all about judges, lawyers, attorney-client privilege, and the police.  We begin with the news that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez; why? After that, the guys break down a video called "Don't Talk To The Police" and discuss some hallmarks of legal videos online. After that, Andrew tackles Donald Trump Jr.'s assertion that whenever a lawyer enters the room, attorney-client privilege shields everything.  Is that really true?  (No.) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #53 about witness impeachment.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on  Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes &amp; Links  This is the  recusal letter sent on behalf of Justice Kagan; and here is the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. You can watch the "Don't Talk To The Police" video. Here's the data on Regent University's fake law school. The first out-of-context quote comes from  Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949). The second out-of-context quote comes from Justice Breyer's dissent in Rubin v. U.S., a 1998 cert petition regarding the extent of executive privilege.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Should you take legal advice from a viral video on YouTube? Today's episode is all about judges, lawyers, attorney-client privilege, and the police.  We begin with the news that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez; why? After that, the guys break down a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&amp;feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">video called "Don't Talk To The Police"</a> and discuss some hallmarks of legal videos online. After that, Andrew tackles Donald Trump Jr.'s assertion that whenever a lawyer enters the room, attorney-client privilege shields everything.  Is that really true?  (No.) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #53 about witness impeachment.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on <a href="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/scienceenthusiastpodcast/2017/12/08/tse-075--andrew-torrez-of-opening-arguments-podcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast</a>; give it a listen! Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>This is the <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Letter-in-No.-15-1204.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> recusal letter sent on behalf of Justice Kagan</a>; and here is the <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges</a>.</li> <li>You can watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&amp;feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the "Don't Talk To The Police" video</a>.</li> <li>Here's the data on <a href="https://www.lstreports.com/schools/regent/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Regent University's fake law school</a>.</li> <li>The first out-of-context quote comes from <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3536555440505209501" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949)</a>.</li> <li>The second out-of-context quote comes from Justice Breyer's dissent in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-93.ZD.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rubin v. U.S.</a>, a 1998 cert petition regarding the extent of executive privilege.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA129:  "Don't Talk To The Police"

In part one of this two-part episode, we tackle every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency. So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or what Trump’s … Continue reading OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1 → The post OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In part one of this two-part episode, we tackle every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency. So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or what Trump’s … <a href="http://openargs.com/oa23-trump-presidency-legal-q-part-1/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Continue reading OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1 →</a> The post <a href="http://openargs.com/oa23-trump-presidency-legal-q-part-1/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1</a> appeared first on <a href="http://openargs.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments</a>.

OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1

Donald Trump

In today's episode, Andrew definitively opines that the Presidential pardon power includes the right to self-pardon. We begin, however, with "Andrew Was Wrong."  This time, he was wrong about Thor Heyerdahl, but right about the fate of Ken Ham's Ark Encounter. In our main segment, the guys analyze the recent claims by Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter, and Norm Eisen that Donald Trump does not have the power to pardon himself and find it less than persuasive. Next, Andrew briefly discusses the legality of Trump's tweet regarding transgender individuals serving in the military. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #34 about introducing a rape victim's sexual history into evidence.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew's talk before the Lehigh Valley Humanists is now up on YouTube. Show Notes &amp; Links  We first discussed AIG's Ark Encounter land sale in Opening Arguments episode #88. This is the  press release from Answers in Genesis regarding their Ark Encounter fraud, and  here is one news account of how the City suspended the tax breaks for the Ark Encounter and the subsequent revocation of the sale. This is the  Tribe/Painter/Eisen article in the Washington Post arguing that Trump doesn't have the power to pardon himself. Here is a link to the 1974 Lawton memo. This is a link to the  Autobiography of Charles Biddle; you'll want to turn to page 306-08 for the Aaron Burr story. This is  "The Law as King and the King as Law" from the Hastings Law Quarterly 20:7.  Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974).  Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). Here is a  link to Gov. Stevens's self-pardon in 1856. This is a  link to Mayor James G. Woodward's self-pardon for public drunkenness in 1901. Finally,  this is the Newsweek article referenced on the show that discusses self-pardons.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In today's episode, Andrew definitively opines that the Presidential pardon power includes the right to self-pardon. We begin, however, with "Andrew Was Wrong."  This time, he was wrong about Thor Heyerdahl, but right about the fate of Ken Ham's Ark Encounter. In our main segment, the guys analyze the recent claims by Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter, and Norm Eisen that Donald Trump does not have the power to pardon himself and find it less than persuasive. Next, Andrew briefly discusses the legality of Trump's tweet regarding transgender individuals serving in the military. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #34 about introducing a rape victim's sexual history into evidence.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhy6lcU2KA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">talk before the Lehigh Valley Humanists is now up on YouTube.</a> Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>We first discussed AIG's Ark Encounter land sale in <a href="http://openargs.com/oa88-noahs-ark-private-stuff-computer/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opening Arguments episode #88</a>.</li> <li>This is the <a href="https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/07/27/dispelling-ark-encounter-myths-in-news/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> press release from Answers in Genesis regarding their Ark Encounter fraud</a>, and <a href="http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/07/25/ark-encounter-moves-property-back-profit-save-tax-incentives/509047001/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> here is one news account of how the City suspended the tax breaks</a> for the Ark Encounter and the subsequent revocation of the sale.</li> <li>This is the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.ce48240762fb" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Tribe/Painter/Eisen article in the Washington Post arguing that Trump</a> doesn't have the power to pardon himself.</li> <li>Here is a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/20856/download" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link to the 1974 Lawton memo</a>.</li> <li>This is a link to the <a href="https://ia902707.us.archive.org/15/items/autobiographyofc00bidd/autobiographyofc00bidd.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Autobiography of Charles Biddle</a>; you'll want to turn to page 306-08 for the Aaron Burr story.</li> <li>This is <a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1426&amp;context=faculty_scholarship" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> "The Law as King and the King as Law"</a> from the Hastings Law Quarterly 20:7.</li> <li><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15223143722839852086" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256</a> (1974).</li> <li><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1448810606414351612" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419</a> (1793).</li> <li>Here is a <a href="http://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/WHQ/article/view/8829/7864" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> link to Gov. Stevens's self-pardon</a> in 1856.</li> <li>This is a <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=T7k5AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA340&amp;lpg=PA340#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> link to Mayor James G. Woodward's self-pardon for public drunkenness</a> in 1901.</li> <li>Finally, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/trump-granting-himself-pardon-governors-641150" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> this is the Newsweek article referenced on the show</a> that discusses self-pardons.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a>

OA90:  Pardon Me? Yes, Donald Trump Can Pardon Himself

Hey folks! We thought we'd release this LAM to everyone, because it was particularly interesting and educational. We hope you enjoy it, and maybe it will inspire some new folks to hop on over to patreon.com/law to get more fun bonus stuff like this! 

Hey folks! We thought we'd release this LAM to everyone, because it was particularly interesting and educational. We hope you enjoy it, and maybe it will inspire some new folks to hop on over to <a href="http://www.patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/law</a> to get more fun bonus stuff like this!

Law'd Awful Movies #28: Alex Jones Deposition

In this episode, we take a look at a landmark decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. First, though, we tackle a question from listener Justin Wilder who wants to know about serving a subpoena on Amazon for evidence in a civil case related to information that might be stored on your Echo.  We love that our listeners are becoming civil procedure geeks! In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the landmark Hively decision and discusses what it means and what the likely future of the case will be. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an examination of South Dakota SB 149 which extends protections to adoption agencies in the state with (wait for it) sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #19 that asks about diversity jurisdiction in federal court between two companies.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew just recorded a two-part episode of the Embrace the Void Podcast; you can (and should!) give Episode 5 a listen right here. Show Notes &amp; Links  FRCP 45 governs subpoenas. This is the Supreme Court's Opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. And here is the link to  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. This is the  text of South Dakota SB 149, which allows adoption agencies to discriminate on the basis of a sincerely held religious or moral belief.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

In this episode, we take a look at a landmark decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, <a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/hively_in_20170404_opinion" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana</a>. First, though, we tackle a question from listener Justin Wilder who wants to know about serving a subpoena on Amazon for evidence in a civil case related to information that might be stored on your Echo.  We love that our listeners are becoming civil procedure geeks! In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the landmark Hively decision and discusses what it means and what the likely future of the case will be. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an examination of South Dakota SB 149 which extends protections to adoption agencies in the state with (wait for it) sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #19 that asks about diversity jurisdiction in federal court between two companies.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and/or our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew just recorded a two-part episode of the Embrace the Void Podcast; you can (and should!) <a href="https://voidpod.com/podcasts/2017/4/11/ev-005-void-law-with-andrew-torrez-part-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">give Episode 5 a listen right here</a>. Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FRCP 45</a> governs subpoenas.</li> <li>This is the Supreme Court's Opinion in <a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/hively_in_20170404_opinion" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana</a>.</li> <li>And here is the link to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-VI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e </a>et seq.</li> <li>This is the <a href="http://www.sdlegislature.gov/docs/legsession/2017/Bills/SB149ENR.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> text of South Dakota SB 149</a>, which allows adoption agencies to discriminate on the basis of a sincerely held religious or moral belief.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a> <a href="http://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/http://media.blubrry.com/openargs/traffic.libsyn.com/openargs/60_Episode_60.mp3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Direct Download</a>

OA60: Sex and Sexual Orientation

In today's episode, we take a look at one of your most requested questions:  what might be in Donald Trump's taxes! We begin, however, with a preliminary question from Jim Sabatowski, who asks us what's the big deal with Trump's tax returns, anyway?  Is there a good reason to think we can get information that's necessary to evaluate a candidate? Next, we give you part one of our two-part interview Tony Di Fatta, a practicing CPA, to take a deep-dive into all the things we might -- and might not -- find in the event that Donald Trump's taxes are ever disclosed.  All of this is meant to shed some light on the question:  should Democrats be focused on finding out what's in Trump's taxes? After our main segment, we inaugurate a new segment about how close President Trump is to impeachment with a question about 18 USC § 1001 and the prohibition against making false statements. With a bonus reference to The Price Is Right! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #11 about the best evidence rule.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Thomas  was interviewed by Conatus News about the development of the atheist community on the internet, including the role played by his other podcast, Serious Inquiries Only. Andrew was a guest on the David Pakman show; you can watch the 14-minute video interview here. Andrew was also a guest on  the Biskeptical Podcast, episode #19, with Trav Mamone and Morgan Stringer, discussing free speech and Milo Yiannopolous. Show Notes &amp; Links  To find out more about Tony, click here for his website, or give him a call at (443) 791-5726. This is a link to  Donald Trump's 2016 financial disclosures. Here's the  hilarious Onion article, "You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm!" This is the text of 18 USC § 1001.  Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

In today's episode, we take a look at one of your most requested questions:  what might be in Donald Trump's taxes! We begin, however, with a preliminary question from Jim Sabatowski, who asks us what's the big deal with Trump's tax returns, anyway?  Is there a good reason to think we can get information that's necessary to evaluate a candidate? Next, we give you part one of our two-part interview Tony Di Fatta, a practicing CPA, to take a deep-dive into all the things we might -- and might not -- find in the event that Donald Trump's taxes are ever disclosed.  All of this is meant to shed some light on the question:  should Democrats be focused on finding out what's in Trump's taxes? After our main segment, we inaugurate a new segment about how close President Trump is to impeachment with a question about 18 USC § 1001 and the prohibition against making false statements. With a bonus reference to The Price Is Right! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #11 about the best evidence rule.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (<a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a>) and/or our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook Page</a> and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Thomas <a href="http://www.conatusnews.com/atheists-online--how-atheists-grew-an-active-internet-community.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> was interviewed by Conatus News about the development of the atheist community</a> on the internet, including the role played by his other podcast, <a href="http://seriouspod.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Serious Inquiries Only</a>. Andrew was a guest on the David Pakman show; you can <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tQJgnL66E4&amp;feature=share" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">watch the 14-minute video interview here</a>. Andrew was also a guest on <a href="http://www.spreaker.com/user/8475438/the-biskeptical-podcast-19-milo-s-frozen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> the Biskeptical Podcast, episode #19</a>, with Trav Mamone and Morgan Stringer, discussing free speech and Milo Yiannopolous. Show Notes &amp; Links <ol> <li>To find out more about Tony, <a href="http://www.tdftaxandaccounting.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">click here for his website</a>, or give him a call at (443) 791-5726.</li> <li>This is a link to <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2838696-Trump-2016-Financial-Disclosure.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Donald Trump's 2016 financial disclosures</a>.</li> <li>Here's the <a href="http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/you-people-made-me-give-my-peanut-farm-i-got-be-pr-55143" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> hilarious Onion article, "You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm!</a>"</li> <li>This is the text of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">18 USC § 1001</a>.</li> </ol> Support us on Patreon at: <a href="http://patreon.com/law" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> patreon.com/law</a> Follow us on Twitter:  <a href="https://twitter.com/openargs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Openargs</a> Facebook:  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/openargs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/openargs/</a> And email us at <a href="mailto:openarguments@gmail.com">openarguments@gmail.com</a> <a href="http://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/http://media.blubrry.com/openargs/traffic.libsyn.com/openargs/45_Episode_45.mp3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Direct Download</a>

OA45:  What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us?  (With Guest Tony Di Fatta) - Part 1

The best podcast episodes on global issues affecting everyone. Covering topics such as the #metoo movement, climate change, the impact of technology and some of the biggest global issues facing us right now. For anyone interested in learning more about the world, and some of the issues we're facing, pick an episode below and start listening! Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes on Global Issues

The best podcast episodes on non-current politics. Covering topics such as universal basic income, democracy, poverty & justice and more. For anyone interested in learning more about politics that affect that world, not just now, but in the longer term. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!